

[Reprinted from the “ Indian Antiquary 

4 <Z 2$r / 



< 2831 
<8 

spy 1 


/ 7 >'V 'C~~Z- L ^y ^ 7 'Y- > 


ON THE OLDEST ARYAN ELEMENT 


OP THE 

SINHALESE VOCABULARY. 

BY PROFESSOR E. KUHN. 

TRANSLATED 

BY 


DONALD FERGUSON. 









* 



61600 







ON THE OLDEST ARYAN ELEMENT OF 
THE SINHALESE VOCABULARY . 1 2 


Among the more prominent languages of Tn din. 
which have had a literary culture, the Sinhalese is 
the only one to which it has not yet been possible 
to assign a fixed place in one of the great families 
of language. - While Rask, without adducing 
any reasons, assigns it a place in the Dravidian 
family (Singalesisk Skriftlcere, Preface, p. 1), and 
F. Muller in the linguistic portion of the work of 
the Novara, p. 203, is inclined to assume a remote 
family relationship to the Dravidian idioms, and 
in the Allgemeine Ethnogr aphie* p. 466, even 
more decidedly indicates the basis of the Sinha¬ 
lese as Dravidian, and Haas (Z. d. M. G. 30, p. 668) 
maintains at least an influence by the Tamil on the 
development of the language, any direct relation 
between Tamil and Sinhalese is brusquely set aside 
by such a scholar as Caldwell (Comp. Gramm. 
(2d. ed.) p. Ill of the Preface). More recently 
the opinion that Sinhalese deserves a place among 
the Aryan dialects is that which has received 

1 Translated from the Munich Sitzungsberichte der 
philo s.-philol. hist. Classe der lc. Akademie der Wis- 
&enschaften, 1879, vol. II, pt. iii, pp. 399-434. 

2 Cf. the same writer in the Transactions of the 
Philological Society, 1875-6, Part i, p. 73:—“ The Sin¬ 
halese language is based on the dialect spoken by the 
colony from Sihhapura in Lala, on the west coast of India, 
who drove into the remote parts of the island the former 
inhabitants, borrowing very little indeed from their 
language.” 




most favour. Tins view, first propounded ably 
by Alwis ( Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the 
Royal Asiatic Society, 1865-6, p. 143-156; 1867-70, 
p. 1-86), has been scientifically established by 
Childers ( Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , 
N. S. YII, pp. 35-48 ; 3 Till, p. 131-155), and ha& 
been accepted by the inquirers in the province of 
Sinhalese inscriptions, Rhys Davids, 4 P. Gold¬ 
schmidt (especially in his first report on the sub¬ 
ject, printed int. at. in Triibner’s Record, X, pp. 21- 
22), 5 and Ed. Miiller— the first mentioned with a 
wise caution, the other two not without allowing: 
themselves to be led into hasty explanations of 
some words. 6 As a curiosity, which deserves 
mention only on account of the highly honoured 
name of its author, it may also be mentioned, that 
Lassen (Ind. Alterthumsk. (2d. ed.) vol. I, p. 557} 
considered the language as entirely a Malayo- 
Polynesian one; the Maldivian, which had its 
origin in Ceylon, and to which he appeals in sup¬ 
port of this view, is however not at all Malayan, 
but an undoubted dialect of the current Sinhalese 

s See note 2, p.. & 

4 Cf.. lo&. eit . p.. 35 : — fet The Sinhalese is ©ne of the 
Aryan vernaculars of India, and is spoken hy the de¬ 
scendants @£ a people who migrated from Magadha to 
Ceylon at a very remote period.” 

5 Cf. loc. cit . p. 22 : —‘ 6 Simhalese is now proved to he a 
thorough Aryan dialect, having its nearest relations in 
some of the dialects used in Xing Asoka’s inscriptions, 
as well as in the MaMrashtri Prakrit of the Indian 
middle-age, while it differs from Pali in very essential 
points.” 

® I refer particularly to the adoption hy E _ Muller 
{Report on the Inscriptions in the ILrmbantota District , 
1878, p. 5 ; Ind. Ant. vol. VIII, p. 224), following the- 
example of Goldschmidt, of the conjunctive usati from 
the root as. 




(though indeed perhaps mixed with foreign ele¬ 
ments), wliieli will probably throw more light on 
it than it is able of itself to do5 

Of the different riews expressed only that relat¬ 
ing to the Aryan character of the language nan be 
subjected to a critical examination: for it alone 
can on satisfactory ground be brought forward ; all 
the others rest upon bare assertions. Let ns first 
examine the subject independently of all historical 
suppositions. Setting aside all Sanskrit tatsamas 
and casual loans from the Pali for religions and 
suchlike ideas, there remains in the Sinhalese of 
all periods and classes of literature a remarkable 
stock of Aryan words, a m ong them all the numerals; 
and a good part of the pronouns and particles. 
If to this be added the fact that the declension 
Is morphologically scarcely distinct from that of 
the modem Aryan languages of India, also that 
a paradigm like that giwen in Alwis’s edition of 
the Sidat Sangard, p. 191— 

Bing. 1. Tear am PL 1. karamu 


karami 

kerem 

keremi 


Jceremu 

kara / m6 


karamh <s 
karawtih'y, 
2. karahu 
hat av 


2. kerehi 


7 See Vocabulary of the Mkldvvian Panguage, -compiled 
by W. Christopher., Journal of the Zh As* Soc* VI, 
p.. 42-76, and Dictionaire de quelques mots de la Langue 
des MaLdiues interpreter en Francois : supplement to "the 
Beconde Partie de Voyage de Francois Pyrard, Paris, 
1669; ef. A Gray in loc. cit. N. S. X, pp. 173-209.— 
Alwis has also left an essay on this subject - see Trubner f ,$ 
Record^ XI, p„ 132. 



6 


Sing. 3. TcerS PL 3. karat 

karati 

keret 

kereti 

agrees closely enough with an Aryan 
Sing. 1. kardmi Pi. 1. kardmas 

2. karasi 2. karatha 

3. karati 3. karanti 

■ — and finally that a whole number of derived verbal 
forms and participial formations have been traced 
back by Childers with undoubted correctness to 
Aryan sources, the view of a purely Aryan charac¬ 
ter of the language has certainly something 
uncommonly attractive about it. But the pleas¬ 
ing impression vanishes if we look closer into the 
language actually in use. Forms like those of the 
paradigm just quoted, while not over-abundant in 
the so-called E1 u of the old poetry, disappear 
in the modern prose as good as entirely before 
karanavd for all persons alike, and the proper 
formation of tenses and moods shows only a dis¬ 
tant connection with that to which we are accus¬ 
tomed in the modern Aryan languages. 

Here we may appropriately consider more closely 
the historical argument of the view in question. 
Its supporters, Rhys Davids and Childers in Zoc. 
cit. supra, and P. Goldschmidt in his Report on 
Inscriptions found in the North-Central Province' 
and in the Nambantota District, 1876, p. 3, rightly 
take as their starting point the popular local tradi¬ 
tion, that Yijaya, a king’s son of Lala, about the 
time of Buddha’s death conquered Ceylon, and 
thus caused an extensive colonization of the island 
by Aryan settlers (c£. the succinct description la 


7 


Lassen’s Ind. Alterthumsk, (2d. ed.) vol. II, p. 
103 ft). TMs Lai a, Rhys Davids looks for on 
the west coast of India, evidently following 
Lassen, who wished to identify it with the pro¬ 
vince of Lata or Latika, the A apucq of the 
Greeks. According to the account given in the 
Mahavamsa, however, which most he here con¬ 
sidered, and from the importance of which 
Lassen himself (Zoc. cit. vol. I, p. 679, note 2) 
could not detract, L a 1 a lies undoubtedly in the 
neighbourhood of Yanga and Magadha: hence 
Childers and P. Goldschmidt with much greater 
reason considered it as a division or a border state 
of Magadha. W e may also with Kiepert ( Lehrbuch 
dev alten Geographic, pp. 41-2) attribute the geogra¬ 
phical homonyms to the fact of a direct intercourse 
between Ceylon and the Ganges region. At any 
rate there can be no good reason for casting doubt 
on the fact of such an Aryan immigration, in spite 
of the uncertainty of the Sinhalese chronology and 
the mythical colouring of the narrative in question, 
However considerable may have been the num¬ 
ber of these settlers, they are not to be compared 
with that immense stream of immigrants which 
at a former period brought the whole of the Ganges 
region under the power of the Aryan language. 
A mixed language is what might be expected at 
first in our case. We are at once reminded of the 
analogous example in Java, by which, through 
lexical influence of the Sanskrit on the Javanese, 
the oldest literary dialect of the island, the Kawi, 
was formed. But on a closer inspection matters 
will be found quite otherwise in Ceylon. The 
Kawi was indeed only the language of literature. 


8 


which was first built up by the learned, to whom the 
Sanskrit, as the sacred language of their religious 
culture, was more or less familiar : characteristic 
of this is the mingling of Sanskrit words, so as 
to invest it with a peculiar dress. The Prakrit 
dialects, which the immigrants undoubtedly spoke 
among themselves, would soon be exchanged for 
the idiom of their new fellow-countrymen, which 
for its part could borrow Sanskrit words only 
from the literary dialect. The grammar of the 
Kawi, like that of the popular language, remain¬ 
ed absolutely unaffected by Aryan influences. 8 
In Ceylon, on the contrary, the true popular 
speech is, even in respect of the grammar itself, 
largely permeated by Aryan elements, and even 
if no certain conclusions can be drawn from these 
for a more exact determination of the origin, the 
oldest elements of the greatly preponderating 
Aryan vocabulary, through their phonetic rela¬ 
tions, exhibit, as the only possible basis, an old 
Prakrit dialect, which must have passed wholly 
and entirely through similar phonetic changes to 
the Pali. The immigrants were therefore numer¬ 
ous enough to use the language spoken by them, 
not simply in their intercourse among themselves, 
but also to ensure to it in the course of years an 
extension and acceptance among the natives as a 
common means of communication. The indi¬ 
genous population gave up almost entirely their 
own stock of words, and accustomed themselves 
to the new Aryan appellations. 9 Only, however, so 

8 Cf. Kern in Cust's Modern Languages of the East 
Indies, p. 18. 

9 Cf. Caldwell’s Comp, Gram. (2nd ed.) p. 578. 



9 


far as it was possible: tbe phonetic system of their 
own tongue had become much weaker than that of 
its penetrating victorious rival, and it is the after¬ 
effects of this that first gave to the Prakrit dialect 
its peculiar Sinhalese colouring. Such a thorough 
disorganization of the original phonetic system, 
such exceedingly strange changes of certain 
words, 10 are only possible where a language has been 
grafted on an entirely new stock, which is not in the 
least prepared for its reception. The heterogeneous 
elements in the composition of forms complete the 
characteristic. Sinhalese is therefore, in spite of 
its preponderating Aryan aspect, a mixed speech, 
whose deeper lying peculiarities remain inexplicable 
so long as its non-Aryan element is denied. 

To what linguistic family this non-Aryan sub¬ 
stratum of Sinhalese belongs, must for the present 
be left undecided. That the original population 
of Ceylon was of Dravidian race, as Caldwell 
indeed more than once maintains, certainly seems 
evident from anthropological and ethnological 
stand-points, as well as from the horrible demon 
worship (cf. on this subject Dandris de Silva 
Gooneratne, in the Journ. of the Ceylon Branch of 
the B. As. Soc. 1865-6, pp. 1-117) reminding one 
entirely of the Dekhan, and might find a sort of 
confirmation in many morphological and syntacti¬ 
cal as well as various phonetic analogies of the 
languages. But, since in the word-forming elements 
themselves a closer relationship cannot be proved, 
a careful comparison of that portion of the voca¬ 
bulary which cannot be explained from an Aryan 

10 Cf. for the present Childers in Joum. of the B. As, 
Soc. N. S. VII, p. 37. 



10 


stand-point with that of the Dravidian dialects is 
the only means of securing broader explanations 
in this direction. Moreover, the dialects of the 
wild races, or those that have become wild, in the 
interior, appear to have been partly influenced by 
the Aryan, in the same manner exactly as Sinhalese 
proper. Of the language of the Y se d d a at least 
this may be considered certain, according to 
Max Muller’s statement at the London Oriental 
Congress {vide Special Number to vol. IX, of 
Trubner’s Record, p. 21, and the remarks of 
Bertram F. Hartshorne, Indian Antiquary, vol. 
YIII, p. 320 : according to the latter the language, 
in whose vocabulary decidedly Dravidian elements 
are entirely wanting, must be undoubtedly Aryan, 
and stand in even closer relationship to E 1 u 11 ). 

The victory of the Aryan element had evidently 
taken place long before the island was won over to 
Buddhism by Mahendra’s successful mission¬ 
ary labours. What influence Pali may then have 
been able to have had on the language, can scarcely 
be ascertained, on account of their common Pra¬ 
krit character. Further inquiry may perhaps 
succeed, by the fixing of certain peculiarities here 
and there, in defining the original Sinhalese 
Prakrit as distinguished from the Pali—it shows 
us for example in the Sinhalese anga, horn, for 
an original # sanga = Skr. h’inga, a as against i 
of the Pali singa and corresponding forms of the 
modern Aryan dialects of the Indian Continent, 

11 Cf. also Sidat SahgarA, ed. Alwis, p. cclxi of the 
Introduction. Casie Chitty’s Vocabulary of the, as it 
appears, very peculiar Rodiya dialect, quoted by Alwis, 
Journ. of the Ceylon Branch R. A. Soc. 1865-6, p. 149, is 
unfortunately not accessible to me. 



11 


including tlie Gipsy (Beames, Comp. Gram., I, p, 
161; Miklosicli, Uber die Mundarten und die 
Wanderungen der Zigeuner Europa’s, vol. VIII, p. 
72; cf. Hemacliandra, I, 130)—but that this will 
ever take place to any great extent cannot yet be 
maintained with any certainty. 12 

It is certainly not in the Buddhist circle of 
ideas and the language of the religio-philosophical 
works, the literature of the higher style, that we 
should now as a rule look for the proofs of the 
Aryan character of the oldest vocabulary. It is 
the common round of every-day life, as it finds 
expression in the present language of conversation, 
the modern prose, so far as it does not attempt 
to use Sanskrit words in the place of pure 
Sinhalese ones, which give us the first certain 
standpoints in respect of the peculiarities of Indian 
literary languages in spite of their lesser antiquity. 
Afterwards, indeed, the inscriptions and the lang¬ 
uage of the old poetry, the so-called Elu, must 
also be brought forward and compared with great 
caution, and some more particular remarks on the 
character of these therefore willnot be out of place. 

The inscriptions, according to Goldschmidt’s 
view, begin soon after the introduction of Buddh¬ 
ism. But their value for lexical investigations 
is not so great as could be wished just at the oldest 
period, on account of the small number of the 
remains and the frequent identity of the contents. 

12 Goldschmidt in his Report on Inscriptions, &c. 1876, 
has endeavoured to prove closer connections between 
the Sinhalese and the Magadhi dialect of the A<?oka 
inscriptions. Rhys Davids (Transactions of the Philol. 
Soc. 1875-6, Part I, p. 75) is inclined to estimate the 
lexical influence of the Pali as extremely small. 



12 


Mistakes increase more and more from careless 
execution, fragmentary tradition, numerous diffi¬ 
culties in the details, and a deplorable lacuna 
between the fourth and ninth centuries. Only from 
the end of the tenth century is there available a 
material at the same time more extensive and more 
certain, and from amongst this the inscriptions of 
the end of the twelfth century published by Rhys 
Davids ( Journ. of the B. A. Soc. N". S. vol. "VII, 
pp. 152 if., 353 If.) are to be noted as specially 
useful. 

The name E1 u, older H e 1 u, is nothing but a 
transformation of the Prakrit S i h a 1 a (Sidat San- 
gard, ed. Alwis, p. xxxii. of the Introduction; cf. the 
author of Visuddhi Marga Sanne, ibid. p. clxxi), 
and signifies therefore first Sinhalese in general, 
then old Sinhalese, and finally in a special manner 
the language of the old poetry (cf. Childers, Journ. of 
the B. A. Soc. N. S. vol. YII, p. 36; Rhys Davids, 
ibid. p. 158) which is set forth grammatically in the 
Sidat Sangard, 13 lexically in the Namavaliya , 14 
and is used now-a-days solely for poetical works. 
True, this language, like all in India that fell into 
the hands of poets and scholars, is more or less an 
artificial production, and its artificial character is 
expressly shown with the greatest distinctness by 
Rhys Davids (Zoc. cit. and Transactions of the 


13 Edited and translated with a lengthy introduction by 
James Alwis, Colombo, 1852—referred to hereafter as 88* 

14 Edited and translated by C. Alwis, Colombo, 1858— 
referred to hereafter as N. The use of this and of several 
other books which appeared serviceable for my task I owe 
to the kindness of Professor K>. Post, of London, who 
has placed at my disposal in the most generous manner 
the rich stores of works of reference from his library. 



13 


JPhilol. Soc. 1875-6, Part I, p. 74 f.). But the 
phonetic phenomena upon which he lays so much 
stress, the shortening of the vowels and the rejec¬ 
tion of the consonantal groups, must from first to 
last he considered as a proof of artificiality. 
The principal changes caused by this and an allied 
tendency—as well as the reduction of polysyllabic 
words to a single syllable, of which Alwis (SS. 
p. xlvii) notes some characteristic examples,— 
is shared by the Elu with the popular speech, as 
is evidenced by an overwhelming number of the 
very commonest words. With much more reason 
'■Goldschmidt refers the artificial character of the 
later Elu—and it is to this alone almost that the 
available linguistic relics are to be ascribed—to 
the influence of the Sanskrit vocabulary, and the 
-extremely heterogeneous adaptation of it to the 
Sinhalese phonetic laws. From the comparison of 
inscriptions of the kings M a h i n d a III (997-1013) 
and Parakramabahu I (1153-1186), he shows 
{Report on Inscriptions , &c. 1876, p. 10) how, while 
in the time of the first the numerous though still 
limited Sanskrit (and Pali) loan words take a Sin¬ 
halese phonetic form, in the time of the latter they 
find an entrance into the language wholly unaltered, 
and he then continues :—“ Shortly after that time 
Simhalese literature, as far as it is now extant, 
must have commenced, its language carrying with 
it the spoils of many foregoing centuries. To 
these the poets and pandits added their own 
inventions : Sanskrit (and Pali) words artificially, 
but often with great skill, turned into Sinhalese, 
and modern Sinhalese words put back into what 
were supposed to be the ancient forms of them. 


M 


lienee the present Sinhalese- style has come to be* 
a strange medley of Sinhalese forms of almost alf 
ages f of thoroughly Sinhalised Sanskrit and Pali 
words, of the 1 same semi- Simhalized, of unchanged' 
Sanskrit and Pali words, and of the random 
inventions erf'poets and pandits. It is this variety 
©f forms of the same words which Simhalese* 
writers take* advantage of to-render their style 
elegant-, although this custom very' little accords 
with what European readers would consider good 
taste.” In spite of this artificiality the Elu often 
enough makes use of the only possible true Sinha¬ 
lese form, where the modern language of 
conversation favours exclusively the pure Sanskrit 
form; in such cases, especially whenever the 
Maidive steps in in corroboration, we think we may 
regard the Elu form entirely without suspicion 
(cf. also Hartshornes statement regarding the 
language of the Ysedda, ante p. 10). 

Let us now turn to a short sketch of the phonetic 
system. 

That a Prakrit dialect of that older phonetic- 
stage, represented substantially by the Pali, 
really forms the basis of the Sinhalese, follows., 
as already remarked above, from the whole 
appearance of the genuine national words. We are 
constrained to refer them all back to a phonetic 
system in which the r vowel of the Sanskrit found 
its representation in a, i, u, the diphthongs ai, cm, 
in e, o, the sibilants p, sh, in the dental s; in which 
moreover the assimilation of coincident heterogene¬ 
ous consonants had the greatest latitude of power. 
Later loan words from the Sanskrit, even if they 
have undergone the above-mentioned phonetic 


Ganges, are at ©nee to "be recognized, especially 
by the presence ef consonants assimilated accord¬ 
ing to Prakrit phonetic rules: thus samudura 
(Elu : modern tatsama samudra-ya )= Skr. sanrn- 
dra as contrasted with the pure Sinhalese muhuda 
(modern muda) from *hamuda = Prakrit samudda, 
or miturd (together with the tatsama mitra-yd in 
the modern language of conversation) = Skr. 
tmitra as compared with the Elu mit = mitta., 
formed in a genuine Sinhalese manner. 

After this preliminary observation on the Prakrit 
basis it is necessary first of all to determine the 
extent of the specific Sinhalese phonetic system. 13 
"The Sidat Sangard —to quote first the chief native 
authority—in § 1 ascribes to the old Sinhalese ten 
vowels :— a, d; i, 4; u , u* e, -e ; a, © ; and twenty 
consonants :—fe, g, j ; f, d, n ; £, d, n ; p, b, m ; y, r ; 
l, v, s, h, 1, am (cf. the remarks of Alwis, 88. pp„ 
Iviii-lxii, 142-146, and Table III), and this is 
in fact, with the addition of ce, de (considered by 
the author as nothing but modifications of a, >4\ 
and after deducting the (as we shall see,) doubtful 
j, the sum of the original phonetic system. Let 
ns now consider the vowels and consonants more 
in detail. 

In this department, so long as we look purely 
at the vowels by themselves in single syllables. 


15 In the following remarks, after ike sign of equation 
is placed, except where something else is expressly 
indicated, the Prakrit original of the Sinhalese word 
in question, for which, on account of the similar phonetic 
basis, reference may generally be made to Childers’ Pali 
Dictionary. Moreover, where only the phonetics have 
been considered, I have not hesitated to take casual 
words from the poetic dialect. 



16 


the remarkable preference for short vowels strikes, 
us as a special characteristic. We may with, 
some reason compare it with the Dra vidian 
custom of shortening the long vowels, of Sanskrit 
words (Caldwell’s Comp. Gramm, p. 87), but. 
with still greater justice may we infer from it a. 
condition of language in which just as in the 
Tibetan 16 a sharp distinction between short and. 
long vowels had not generally taken place. This, 
condition appears to have been universally carried 
out in radical syllables, so far as more encroaching 
changes did not. step in: ka-navd, \Jkhdd, Prakr.. 
pres, khai (Hemachandra IY,228; cf. Pali khdyita = 
Skr. khddita, et. al. in Kuhn, Beitr. z. Pali Gramm „ 
p. 56), kanuva — khdnu ; kahinavd, \/kds ; garna 
= gama; dana — jdnu; nama = nama ; ya-nava T . 
\/yd ; rada , raja, ==. rdjd ; isa, hisa, = sisa; dum 
= dhuma , &c; moreover the Sanskrit-Prakrit e, o r 
have in Sinhalese always the corresponding short, 
sound. Secondarily, long vowels, are developed 
through contraction after a preceding omission of 
consonants :—amd (Elu) = amata, Skr. amrita ; xT 
uda = udaya (Rhys Davids, Journ,. of the 
B. As. Soc . N. S. vol. YII, p. 366); vi = vihi 
miya from *mihiyd == musika ; muda from 
mvuhuda = samudda ; bcend from bcehcend = 
bhdgineyya (Rhys Davids, loc ^ citS) ; g.6 from 

13 According to Csoma {Gram- of the Tibetan Language 
§ 2) the vowels in that tongue are spoken “ without any 
distinction into short and long, hut observing a middle- 
sound.” 

17 In connection with vatura, water, this forms the: 
title of the well-known book Amdvatura, which we can¬ 
not, with Jacobi ( Kaljpasutra , p. 6), Sauskriti&e as Atmd-. 
vatdra . 



17 


geya = geha, &c. is ; but these lengthenings them¬ 
selves not infrequently give place to still further 
contraction : dola from dola = dohala (Childers, 
Journ. of the B. As. Soc. N. S. vol.YII, p. 36); il 
for hil(a), in the name of the month ilmasa, “ cold 
month,” from hihila (vide Goldschmidt’s first 
Report in Trubners Record X, p. 22) = 4isira. 
In suffixal syllables long vowels, hitherto inexplic-. 
able, are not infrequent, but even here, according 
to Childers’ testimony ( loc. eit.., YIII, p. 143), the 
long d of the animate masculine, as miniha, putd, 
*= manusa, puta, points back to an older a, just as 
the 4 of the feminine does to an older i. In the 
Elu prosody the preponderating shortness of 
vowel appears also with the condition that every 
syllable ending in a consonant be considered as 
long (Alwis, SS. p. xci, xeii, cxx).. 

Yery extensive and multiform is the vowel 
change produced by a following i, i, by virtue of 
which the umlaut vowels ce, de ; i, 4 ; e, e ; are 
produced from a, d ; u, u; o, 6 ; transitions which, 
in the formation of the feminine with i, of the 
passive with original iya, of the (participial) pre¬ 
terite with ita , have obtained a widespread 
grammatical acceptance. As Childers has (loc. cit. 
p. 143, 148 If.) discussed exhaustively all three 
cases, I can refer generally to his examples, and 
wish only to call attention to the fact that in 
passive forms like kerenava, from Jearanavd, 
tibenavd from tabanavd, as against the regularly 
formed hoedenavd from Jcadanavd, greater trans- 

18 By contraction are also produced in the modem pro¬ 
nunciation secondary diphthongs also : auva, aurudda, 
for avuva, avurudda, and many more. 



18 


formations have taken place, the true cause of 
which has yet to be discovered. Of other cases of 
umlaut I would also especially mention the 
abstract suffix %ma and the suffix of possession i : 
devima from dovinavd, sj dull ; garni from gama = 
gdrna. In words like hili — kuti ; pirisa — 
purisa; irw, hiru, from '*hiriyu = suriga, the 
umlaut cannot with full certainty be separated 
from the complete vowel assimilation* which is 
well attested by such examples as pili = pati; 
piri — pari ; dunu — dhanu ; limu from luhunu 
for lahuna ~ Icasuna ; muhuda from *mahuda for 
*hamuda = samudda , and many others. The i 
also, which was produced first by the weakening of 
other vowels, can, it seems, be produced by 
umlaut : mcediyd — manduka; bcema from 
^bcemiya = bhamuka (ef. scela — Skr. sari ltd ); 
in the last example the i which gave rise to the 
umlaut has since disappeared, as it was removed by 
contraction in U — lehita and the example 
quoted by Childers fed — khdyita, %/khdd. 

A large number of remarkable vowel changes 
are closely connected with certain eonsonantial 
mutations. An l, which has been produced from 
a cerebral or a dental, appears to have often 
changed a neighbouring a into o : eJcolaha, dolaha * 
pahaloha = ekddasa, dvddasa, pahehadasa; polova 
— pathavi or pathavt; moloua, brain, perhaps 
*mattha, Skr. *masta, in the sense of Skr. mastishka 
and mastuluhga = Pali matthalwkga. Instead of 
$a in Sanskrit tatsamas we find sm (Clough’s 
Singhalese and English Dictionary, p. 686). Of the 
change of consonant produced by the dropping 
of vowels we shall have more to say further on. 


19 


The subject of the non-radical terminal vowels 
will render necessary in the future a more search¬ 
ing examination. In the oldest inscriptions the 
well-known peculiarly Magadhic nominative of 
the. masculine and neuter in e appears to be 
pretty common (Goldschmidt’s Report on Inscrip¬ 
tions, &c. 1876, p. 3); in Elu the u which recals 
the Prakrit o is much more frequent than in the 
modern language, which appears to make use 
more of the a. Of various exceptions, like Jciri 
— khira, dana = janu, vcesi = vassa, and many 
others, there is no lack. In the last part of a 
compound the non-radical terminal a is mostly 
dropped (Childers, Journ. of the R. As. Soc. N. S. 
YII, pp. 45, 47); many forms of originally dissyl¬ 
labic words contracted in this manner may then 
have been also employed independently, and 
would thus have not immaterially increased the 
number of monosyllables, especially numerous in 
Elu ( vide supra p. 13). We have already 
spoken above of the lengthening of non-radical ter¬ 
minal a and i in words denoting animate being. 

In regard to the constitution of the consonant 
system the want of aspirates and the incomplete¬ 
ness of the palatal series are peculiarities which 
strike one immediately. 

The representation of the former, whether in 
tenues or mediae aspiratae, by the corresponding 
unaspirated consonants is the rule; besides this 
we have the separation of the aspiration from the 
more permanent consonantal element, and transi¬ 
tion into simple h. The former was a special 
peculiarity of the Elu, and is sufficiently supported 
in § 22 of the Sidat Sahgard by such characteristic 


20 


examples as scedcehce, also scedoe, =*= saddhd (Skr. 
p raddhd), salaham, also sadam, = saddhamma, 
&c. The latter is clearly prayed in the case of the 
popular speech by such a form as bihira = badhira, 
Maid. Mru (Oh.); for this reason also luhu = laghu 
(also luhuhdu ) may with justice claim the privilege 
of nationality over the less disfigured lagu. 

With the loss of the aspiration may well be 
classed the dropping of the h in nasal 
combinations : bamunu from the Prakrit form 
bamhana for Skr. and Pali brdhmana (Hema- 
chandra I, 67 ; II, 74 ; cf. E. Kuhn, Beitr. zurPdli- 
Gramm. p. 5 f.); gim — gimha (Elu—in the 
modern language completely supplanted by the 
tatsamas from the Skr. and Pali grishma-ya and 
gimhana-ya ); unu, hot, = unha, Maid. hunu\ in 
the same manner vh to v : diva =zjivha. Besides 
forms are freely found like banriba for the name 
of the god Brahma and the Pali adjective brahma 
(E. Kuhn, loc. cit. p. 18) on the one hand, and the 
derived unuh-um, unuh-uma, heat, on the other, 
which however appear to belong more to the 
literary dialect. 

As to the palatal series, c and naturally ch 
appear only in later loan words. Their ordinary 
substitute in pure Sinhalese words is s, which 
like the other s is subject to the change into h : 
isinavd, ihinava, from *hisinavd, \/sich (Childers, 
Journ. of the B. As. Soc. N. S. vol. YIII, p. 147) ; 
pisanavd,pihanava, \/pach ; saka, haka,—chakka ; 
simbinavd, sjchumb ; gasa, gaha, tree, pi. gas, = 
gachchha; gos, gohin, gihin, to pres, gachchhati ; 
sihdinava, \fchhid, pres, chhindati; &c. More¬ 
over, compensation is found in d, which—in view of 


21 


Sinhalese d for j, to be mentioned immediately— 
presupposes a transition into the media: muda- 
nava, \Zmuch ; da = cha (Alwis, 88. p. liv); yadi - 
nava, \Jydch ; ceduru = dchariya ( N'. v. 178, 278), 
which the Maid, aydru (P.), eduru (Ch.), shows to 
be a popular form. The retention of the media j 
amongst the Sinhalese vocables in opposition to 
this universal rejection of the palatal terms is 
extremely curious. It is true that j is found in 
the older inscriptions, but almost every really 
native word, as diva = jivha ; dana = janu , 
dinanava, \/ji, pres, jindti ; dunudiya = dhanu- 
jiyd : vidinavd, \Zvyadh, pres, vijjhati, has d for 
j. Forms like the proper name Bujas = Buddha - 
ddsa, or vajeriyi, which E. Muller {Report on 
Inscriptions, &c. 1878, p. 6) following Goldschmidt 
rightly derives from vaddranavd, are correctly 
explained by the fact that original j was represent¬ 
ed chiefly by d and was first restored anew as j 
by the gradual acquisition of later tatsamas: 
indeed, in the striving after exaggerated elegance 
of speech it would sometimes be appropriated in 
cases where d alone could be correct, just as 
the low Germans, when they wish to speak high 
German, substitute a Trepfe for Treppe. Words 
with j = Skr. and Pali j must also be considered 
as more or less remodelled tatsamas, and the 
rada, radu, of the Elu is indeed earlier than the 
raja = rdja of most of the inscriptions, as the 
analogous rad, fern, rcedna, of the inscriptions 
(Goldschmidt, Report on Inscriptions, &c. 1876, 
p. 10) and the mahd radung = mahdrdja in the 
title of the Sultan of the Maldives ( Journ . of the 
R. As. 8oc. vol. YI, p. 73) amply testify. 


22 


Of the cerebrals t and d alone appear to main¬ 
tain inflexibly their peculiar character, n on the 
other hand being in modern conversation as little 
distinguished from n as l from l (Singhalese 
Grammar, Cotta, 1825, p. 4 ; Carter, Singhalese 
Lesson Book, Colombo, 1873, p. 8 f.). The Maldi¬ 
vian has distinct characters for n and l, and also 
distinguishes l and l in conversation with great 
clearness ; modern Sinhalese authors regulate the 
use of them in writing almost entirely by etymology. 
Moreover, l is in many cases to be traced back to 
older cerebrals or dental explosives: kili = kuti, pili 
—pati-, for other examples, see above, pp. 17, 18- 
The nasals require a succinct investigation. 
And here in the first place we must mention as a 
special peculiarity a weak nasal sound before the 
explosives of all four classes, which, following the 
example of Childers, we represent by h before 
gutturals, cerebrals, and dentals, and by m before 
labials, and for further information respecting 
which Rask, Singhalesisk Skriftlcere § 19 ; Sing¬ 
halese Grammar, Cotta, 1825, p. 6; Alwis, SS. 
p. liv, lxi. f. 145-149 passim ; Alwis, Descriptive 
Catalogue of Literary Works of Ceylon, Colombo, 
1870, p. 235 1, may be consulted. Unfortunately 
all these authorities give little information as to 
the exact articulation, but we may infer from the 
plurals am, lim, derived from ahga, lihga, by 
Childers \Journ. of the B. As. Soc. N. S. vol. YII, 
p. 45), that it is closely related to the anus vara, i. e., 
to the nasal vowel. In fact, this weak nasal sound 
takes the place of the original consonantal nasal 
before explosive sounds, exactly in the same 
manner as the anus vara of the modern Aryan 


23 


languages of the Continent (Kellogg, Gramm, of 
the Kindi Language, § 14; Beames, Comp. Gramm. 
vol. I, p. 298 f.). This explains the want, on which 
Alwis lays such particular stress, of a guttural 
nasal, which indeed is always conditional on a 
following guttural. The independent nasal palatal 
of the Prakrit becomes dental n: panaha ~ 
panhdsa (Skr. pahchdsat), nee — nati ; of those due 
to a following palatal the typical examples are 
kasun = kahehana, ahdun (Elu) == ahjana. 
Further weakenings of the nasal element leads to 
entire loss : mas = mamsa, vas = vamsa, mcediyd 
= manduka, sapayanavd from sampadayati 
(Childers, Journ. R. As. Soc. N. S. vol. VIII, 
p. 145), scetapenavd, to rest, sleep (in respectful 
language)—according to G-oldschmidt from sam 
•+ tapp = Skr. tarp ; particularly in Elu : ok = 
ahka ( N. v. 39), laha == lankd, lakara ( N. v. 168) 
= alahlcdra, yatura = Skr. yantra, and many 
more: we find also in the older inscriptions saga 
used throughout for sahgha (Rhys Davids, Indian 
Antiquary, vol. I, p. 140). The reverse of this in 
the nasalization of ahdunanavd from pres, djdnd.ti 
(Childers, Journ. R. As. Soc. N. S. vol. VIII, 
p. 145) is remarkable, while by an opposite pro¬ 
cess the nasal has been strengthened by an 
explosive in vahdurd~vdnara, hihdurd = kinnara, 
&c. It is also to be noticed that through phonetic 
' strengthening a combination nd was developed at a 
later period from hd ; for example, from the old 
singular hcehdi (with short first syllable ?—see 
Alwis, SS. p. exx), which is now used as plural, a 
new singular form hoenda (with first syllable long 
from position) has sprung, and both stand in the 


24 


same relation as dunu pi. to dunna sg. (see Singha¬ 
lese Grammar, Cotta, 1825, p. 9; Childers, Journ. 
JR. As. Soc. N. S. vol. YII., p. 46 f.). 

The old h seems to have originally completely 
dropped off : ata = hattha and cetd = # hatthika, 
aran past pret. (strictly pres.) act. from \/hri 
(Childers, Journ. R. A. Soc. N. S. vol. VIII, p. 150) ; 
with a hiatus-destroying semivowel; gey a == geha, 
dovinava from \/ duh, pres, dohati. In the oldest 
inscriptions two characters are found for the sibi¬ 
lant (Rhys Davids, Indian Antiquary , vol. I, p. 140; 
Goldschmidt, Report on Inscriptions, &c., 1876, 
p. 4) ; as however these interchange arbitrarily 
they soon became as at present a single letter in 
place of the Skr. s, sh, s. Besides s interchanges 
often with h (Alwis, SS. § 22), and may like the 
latter be completely lost: ahga with the Elu forms 
sahgu, hahgu, = * sang a, Skr. srihga; isinavd 
\/sich ; hisa, isa, ilia, = sisa, Skr. Ursha ; but 
minihd = manussa, pi. minissu, and similarly 
gasa, gaha, tree, = gachchha, pi. gas (cf. Singhalese 
Grammar , Cotta, 1825, p. 5, 8 f.). 

There remain some more phonetic peculiarities, 
which could not be directly included in the review 
of the phonetic system. 

Double consonants appear to be originally as 
foreign to the language as long vowels. The 
double consonance of the Prakrit, including the 
combinations of tenuis and media with their 
aspirates, is usually replaced by the simple con¬ 
sonants. Actual gemination is to be explained in 
most instances either by letter borrowing or as in 
the case of the plural forms already cited by 
special grammatical processes. Original simple 


25 


'explosives between vowels are on the other hand 
in the generality of cases dropped, 18 and are 
replaced by the hiatus-destroying y, v, whereby 
-a contignons a is exposed to the transition into i 
and u ; a further step in the vowel change is not 
infrequently the contraction referred to above * 
muva = mukha, lo'da = loka, liyanavd, \/ likh, 
kevili, kevilld , and *kovulu, kovulld, = kokili, 
nay a = ndga, avuva = dtapa, nuvara = nagara , 
with the derived niyari, towns, siyulu — sakala 
siyuru (Elu) = chakora, giya — gata, riya == ratha, 
kiyanavd to kaihayati, miyuru = madhura y 
with mihi — madhu (cf. above p. 20) and thence 
mi in mi-mcessd (bee, lit. honey-fly), mi-pceni 
(honey, lit. honey-water). So also the -ya, -vd, 
characterizing the later tatsamas— samudra-ya, 
'vastru-va —originally arose from -ka, cf. taruva = 
tdrakd, &c.; in the same manner also are to be 
explained many old tadbhav-as like otuvd — 
ottha-ka, hdvd for *hahaod — sasa-ka, vceya, 
axe, = *vasi-kd for vdsi. As opposed to the 
dropping of h referred to above, it is note¬ 
worthy that in cases like ahasa — dkasa, bcehcena, 
hdena, = bhagineyya, h also appears as a hiatus- 
destroyer. 

In analogous manner the substitution of v for 
radical p is to be explained, in case the transi¬ 
tion of p into b and of b into v is not preferred; 


18 That this dropping 1 must have belonged to the 
Prakrit dialect which lies at its basis does not on account 
of the early period of its introduction into Ceylon, seem 
to me quite probable. The occurrence of a word like 
bati in the oldest inscription, supposing that it really 
means brother (vide E. Muller, Report on Inscriptions, 
&c. 1878, p. 3), would also decide against it. 



cf. tabanava to *thapayati, Pali thapeti; Tcas'wbu'vdH 
= hachchhapa-ka ; bonavd, pai*t. pret. act. bi, ta 
\/ pd; venavd; old part. pres.act. vu, to \Zbhu; pos¬ 
sibly also vadanavd, if this is connected wit hpaja r 
pajdyate, and vcetenavd r if with, Goldschmidt in op¬ 
position to Childers ( Journ . R. A. Soc. N. S. vol. 
VIII, p. 148) we venture to trace it to V pat (on t 
for t, cf. Hindi padnd &c. Beam.es, Comp. Gramm*. 
vol. I, p. 225). The opposite to this transition of the 
tenuis into the media is seen in # i kurulu, Tcurulld , 
which has Been rightly identified by Goldschmidt 
with garuda (other examples of Jc for g in E» 
Muller, Report on Inscriptions , &c. 1878, p. 6). 

Finally the not infrequent metathesis is to be 
noted : mahand = samana, muhuda for *hamuda 
— samuddu (cf. Alwis, SS. §, 14). 

Into the disturbing operations which are the 
cause of a number of coincident phonetic laws we 
cannot enter further in this short sketch. 

There follow now a number of Sinhalese sub¬ 
stantives, arranged in natural order, whose Aryan 
etymology does not readily yield to the developed 
principles of well-matured inquiry. In considering 
these we shall make use of the list of words of the 
modem tongue in S. Lambrick’s Vocabulary of 
the Singhalese Language, Fourth Edition, Cotta, 
1840 (L.), as compared with B. Clough’s Dictionary 
of the English and Singhalese, and Singhalese 
and English Languages, Two Volumes, Colombo, 
1821—1830 (C.). For the Elu, besides the Ndma- 
valiya (A., see above p. 12), W. C. Macready’s 
Glossary to his edition of the Scelalihini San- 
desaya (MR.) has been utilized. The Maldivian 
words I give as far as possible in their original 


27 


spelling according to Pyrard (P.) and Christo¬ 
pher (Ch.) 19 

Living existence in general: said = salta, Skr. 
■sattva. 

Man: minihd=manussa, pi. minissu; Maid, with 
greater contraction mihung (Ch.), in P. miou, 
* ‘personnel The words for man, manly: pirimi - 
ya,M.al&.pyrienne(P.),firihenung (Ch.), are closely 
.related to purisa, as proved hy the Maid, piris 
(P.), firimiha (Ch.), husband, and Eln pirisa, 
““ a train, retinue.” For women the modern langu¬ 
age has not infrequently according to Rhys Davids 
(Transactions of the Philol. Soc . 1875-6, Part I, 
p. 74) the little altered tatsama istri (in Elu 
modelled into itiri, N. v.. 151), by the side of the 
more usual gdeni, which must be derived from 
^gahini— Skr. grhini (on the forms of the Pali and 
Prakrit cf. E. Kuhn, Beitr. zurPali-Gramm, p. 16); 
Maid, anghaine { P.), anghenung (Ch.), is clearly 
identical with cmgand (cf. angana N. v. 151). 

Among terms of relationship we meet with 
some which like appd for father and amma for 
mother reeal the Dravidian, but possibly are only 
borrowed from languages of this family; besides 
these there are good Aryan words in living use. 
A relation in general is nde — nati, besides the 
further developed nceyd, with which is to be 
connected perhaps also n&nd, female cousin, 
•cousin german. For father and mother the 


19 I have replaced the italics with which Ch. represents 
the cerebrals by the transliteration now commonly 
adopted. It is far from my present purpose to go 
further into the phonetic relations of the Maldivian- 
I only remark of it that Ch. has replaced the old p 
throughout by /. 



23 


Aryan terms are piyd — pita, and mavu r marr r 
Elu mava, = matd. For son and daughter we 
have puta = putta and duva f d&, = duhitd (cf. 
Maid, mapoutte, “ mon fils, ” and mandie, “ ma. 
fille,” in P., futn, “ boy,” in Cb.). A mere gene¬ 
ral word for child is daruva ~ ddraka (Maid.. 
dary P., dating Oh..) Eor brother and sister the 
modern speech simply (without difference of age)? 
knows of the tatsamas sahodara-ya and sahddari; 
the bee, brother, quoted by Rhys Davids ( Journ 
JR. As. Soc . N. S. vol. YII, p. 366)., goes back to 
the bati of the inscriptions, and is identical with 
the Maid, be (bee P., bebe Oh.), for elder brother. 
Bcehcend, hmnd, nephew (said to be originally also, 
elder brother : cf. Rhys Davids loc. citS),, is from 
bhdgineyya. To munuburd, grandson, with the 
f ern, minibiri, we find neither in Skr. nor in Pali or- 
Prakrit anything exactly corresponding, but it is 
identified, by P. Goldschmidt ( Beport on Ins crip-, 
tions, &c. 1876, p. 4) with, the manumaraka of the- 
inscriptions, and, by a comparison with the well- 
known example of nandana, son, is derived by him 
from manor ama, which is certainly not absolutely 
impossible. For father-in-law and mother-in-law 
the Maid.has,according toPyrard hours and/nras-se, 
which are of course identical with Pali sasura and 
sassu. The modern Sinhalese- employs mamd 
and ncendd (older ncendi ), also nmdi, which signify 
strictly avunculus and amita; ncendd is, like Skr. 
nandndr— Pali nanandd, to be traced' to \/ nand*. 
The Elu has besides, ncendi the word suhul, relat¬ 
ed to sassura, sassn, and for father-in-law, with 
the like transference of meaning, mayil beside the 
tatsama mdtula- (N. v. 154); e£. ncedimayild as the 


20 


explanation of tlie plural sasurd in Subhdti, Abhi - 
dhdnappadipikd v. 250. For son-in-law Pyrard 
gives damy, which, is manifestly to be identified 
with jdmdtd. 

Castes, classes, &e.—We have already spoken of 
the terms for king, raja, rada, = rdjd. Besides 
we have radala (“ gentleman,” L., “ husband,” 
“ headman,” “ chief,” C.), and its contraction rdla 
{“yeoman,” L., “husband,” “master,” ‘'lord,” 
“ a term affixed to names or titles, implying 
respect,” C.), which appear to be connected. Biso, 
bisava, queen, is according to Clough to be 
derived from abhiseka. The oft-recurring depd 
of the inscriptions as a designation of a high 
officer of state is from adhipa {vide Rhys Davids, 
Indian Antiquary, vol. II, p. 248; Journ. R. A. Soe. 
1ST. S. vol. VII, p. 365). Kamburd, smith {“ iron- 
smith”), — Pali kammdra, and is used to explain 
this word by Subhfiti in Abhidh. v. 509. Kumbald , 
potter, — kmnbhakara, and similarly sommary, 
tanner, doubtless assimilated from theElu samvaru 
with samkaru = chammakdra , cf. Hindi chamdr; 
in lokuruvd, smith (brazier, L., IV.), = lohakdraka, 
which as a compound is much more intelligible, 
k has been preserved. Radavd, washerman, == 
rajaka. Vaduvd, carpenter, = vaddhaki. Vedd . 
doctor, = vejja, Skr. vaidya. Vceddd (older vcedi ) = 
.vyddha (Ghilders, Journ. of the R. As. Soe. N. S. 
VIII, p. 131). Rord, thief cora. AEduru, teacher, 
vS = dcariya, mahand samana, bamunu to Skr. 
and Pali brdhmana, have already been mentioned 
above. 

On mit, mitura , mitra-yd, friend, see ante p. 15,. 
"The word is the same in Maid., as is seen from 


30 


demitourou, “ compagnons” P. (i. e. r de mitourow * 
two friends), and rahumaiteri, “ friend,” (Ch.); 
another popular word is yahalu-vd, ydlu-vd, in 
Elu (N. v. 189) without diminutive ending yahala , 
yahalu, which may be a somewhat irregular, form 
of a theme identical with Pali sakhara . 20 For 
enemy the little altered tatsama saturd — Skr. 
patru is in use. 

The words of Aryan origin for animals are toler¬ 
ably numerous. Among cattle we have first gond, 
bull, ox, = gona, and with the same meaning 
geriyd (cf. Maid, guery P., geri Oh. ox), a diminu¬ 
tive of Hindi goru and its allies, which like gona 
itself are, as Pischel says (Bezzenberger’s Beitra- 
genz. Kunde der indogerm. Sprachen, III, p. 237), 
to be- derived from a root gur. Vassa, calf, older 
vasu, is of course = vachchha, Skr. vatsa. On 
dena — dhenu, which figures directly as a feminine 
suffix, Childers (. Journ „ JR. A. Soc. N. S. voL 
Till, p. 144) may be consulted. The monosyl¬ 
lable mi in the compounds mi-haraka (Maid. 
migunu, Oh.), buffalo, and mi-dena , buffalo cow, is, 
as Childers has already rightly stated, to be identi¬ 
fied with mahisa ; the Elu has besides a fuller mivu r 
which however may also possibly be identical with 
the diminutive amplified modern vni-vd. Eluvd y 
sheep, goat, = elaka.. tfra, pig (Maid, owre P. uru 
Oh.), for *hwrd, = sukara. Otuvd, camel(ef. Maid. ol, 
P. og, Ch. with the peculiar final g sound), = ottha - 
ha. For horse the Skr. tatsama asvayd, aspaya, is. 
now-a-days used; the popular form is in Elu ast 
(Maid, asse, P. as, Ch.) and is retained in the com- 


30 The forms salhi and salilvx answer to the Elu words, 
saki and saha given in loc. cit . 



31 


pound asvcelembd, mare, the second part of which 
Childers rightly traces to vadava. Balala, cat (Maid, 
boulau, P. bulau, Ch.), = bilala. Miyd rat, = 
musika.AEtd, elephant ,=*fiatthika (cf. above p. 18), 
fern, cetinni from older cetini; we also find aliyd 
with noteworthy a (Maid, however el P., eg. Ch., 
beside matang = mdtangct), which is possibly also 
derived from *hatthika. Of the terms for raven¬ 
ing beast the Skr. tatsamas simha-ya (also Maid. 
singa P.) smdvydghra-yd have entirely superseded 
the popular appellations; for the latter a form 
more consonant with the original phonetic rules 
is the Elu vaga, which is clearly established by 
the Maid, vagou (P)., “ leopart”; another word for 
panther, leopard, is diviyd, Elu divi, = dipi, Skr, 
dvipin. Valaha, valasa t bear, has been aptly explain¬ 
ed by Childers ( Journ . R. A. Soc. N. S. vol. YIII, 
p. 144) as a compound of vana + accha = Skr. 
riksha, thus literally forest bear. The jackal is 
called int. al. hivala — sigdla (Maid, hiyalu Ch.); 
with this is perhaps connected kcenahil ( N.. v. 141) 
or koenahild (Subhuti, Abhidh. v. 615). The two 
varieties of apeg indigenous to Ceylon are dis¬ 
tinguished by the obscure rilavd and by vandurd — 
vdnara. For the deer and antelope family we 
have muvd = miga and gdna, a very contracted 
form of gokanna. Hare: hdva — sasa-ka. 

Birds in general, kurulld, older # kurulu , = garud a 
(see above p. 26); the mythical bird king is called 
in Elu gurulu (N. v. 14). Cock: kukuld = kuk~ 
kuta, fern, kikili; in Maid, we find coucoulou (P.,» 
kukulu (Ch.), curiously enough for the fern., while 
for the masc. a puzzling aule (P.), hau (Ch.), is 
used. Monara, peacock, may be connected in some 


32 


way with mora = Skr. mayura ; for the Maid. Ch. 
gives nimeri. Dove : paraviyd = Skr. paravata, 
Pali pdrdpata. From kokila come kovulld, older 
*kovulu, and kevilld, older kevili (cf. Maid, koweli), 
fern. kevilU. The word for parrot, girava, Maid. 
gouray (P.), may he an irregular form of Hra-ka. 
From kaputd, kaputuvd, crow, also kavudd, kavwdu- 
vd, with which perhaps Maid, caule (P.), kalu (Oh.), 
is to he connected, we might perhaps, taking ball- 
pushta, balibhuj, as a parallel case, draw the 
inference of the existence of a somewhat irregular 
ka-pushta(ka). Hawk: ukussd, older *ukusu, still 
further contracted to ussd, =ukkusa, Skr. utkro&a. 
That the old hamsa was transferred to the Sinha¬ 
lese as *asa is clearly enough proved hy the Elu 
hasa, Maid, radaas, goose (Ch.), = Elu radahasa 
(N. v. 144), and Maid, asduni, duck, Oh. (com¬ 
pounded with donny P., duni Ch., hird). For kokd, 
crane, the phonetic equivalent is Skr. koka, which 
indeed means a hird of the duck or goose family. 

From D. H. Pereira’s treatise on the snakes of 
Ceylon in the Ceylon Friend (see ser. II, p. 81 ff), 
it seems that nay a and polangd are the common 
terms for cohra and viper respectively. The 
former is clearly = naga. In the latter I conjec¬ 
ture the Skr. patahga, Pali patanga or patanga, 
with special modification of meaning (with respect 
to the phonetic relations cf. supra p. 18, and the 
word to he noticed soon, polangoetiya ): the word 
in itself means only an animal darting hither and 
thither with great swiftness. 21 The female cobra 

21 According to Suhhuti in Abhidh. v. 651 it meant the 
same as tilichchha in Pali; therefore the latter may be 
traced to the Skr. tirascha and the Skr. form tilitsa may 
rest upon a mistaken Sanskritization. 



33 


is now called, according to Pereira ( loc . cit. p. 85, 
86) hoepinna, in Elu scepini, = sappini ; the tat- 
sama sarpa-yd is also found as harufa (Ch.) in 
Maid. For other reptiles I only mention kimbuld, 
alligator, == JcumbMla (with evident metathesis of 
the vowels), goyd, iguana, = godhd, mcediyd, frog, 
= manduka, and kcesba, kasubuva , tortoise, = ka- 
chchhapa{ka) (Maid. kahabu Ch.). 

Fish was originally mas = machchha, as the Elu 
mas (N. v. 83), Maid, masse (P.), mas (Ch.), show; 
to avoid confusion with mas , flesh, the modern 
language makes use of the Sanskrit tatsama 
matsya-yd ; there is also a more elaborated word 
main from *mahalu — *machchhala (cf. Hindi 
machhli). 

Of other animals we may also mention kaku- 
luva, crab, = kakkataka. For spider we have 
makuluvd — makkataka and makuna = *makkuna 
or Pali mankuna, Skr. matkuna (Maid, makunu 
Ch.). Ukund and ikini, louse, to Pali uka, Skr. yuka ; 
cf. Childers Journ. of the R. As. Soc. N. S. VIII, 
p. 143. Polangcetiyd, grasshopper, is undoubtedly 
connected with Pali patahga, Skr. patahga ; the 
last part is however not clear to me. Bombard, 
wasp, = bhamara. Massa, fly, older *mcesi, *mcehi 
(Maid, mehi Ch.), with its compound mi-mcessd, 
honey-fly, i. e. bee, may be connected either with 
*machchhikd for Pali makkhika, Skr. makshikd , 
or with Skr. maSaka, Pali makasa. 

The names of parts of the body yield an im¬ 
portant contingent of Aryan words. Head is 
iha, isa, Elu hisa ( N.. v. 199, MR.), == sisa ; I do 
not know how to treat oluva, which is also in use, 
any more than I do Maid, bolle (P.), bo (Ch.). 


34 


Skull: kabala — kapala. For the hair of the 
head L. gives isJcd, in which M for *keha = kesa. 
From mukha (= Eln muva ) comes mu-na, face, Elu 
muliu-nu{'M.aM. munu). Nalala, forehead,= naldta 
Skr. lalata (Maid, ni Oh. P): cf. Pischel’s Hema- 
chandra 147. For eye cesa — achchhi-ka (cf. supra 
p. 19) is the popular word, Maid, in esfxya (Ch.), 
eyelid,— Sinh. o&spihdtta\ Maid, lols (P.), 16 (Ch.), 
is to be connected with \Zloch, lochana. Brow: 
bcema = bhamuka (Maid, bouman P., buma Ch.). 
Ear. kana = kanna {JSlald. campat P., kangfai Ch., 
strictly ear-hole, ear-cavity). That the Eln for 
nose ncshce = ndsikd is the genuine Sinhalese word 
may be inferred from the allied Maid, nepat (P.), 
nefai (Ch.) (cf. Sinh. ndsputaya, naspuduvd, 
nostril?); new Sinh. nahe, nase, is nothing but the 
tatsama nasa-ya. Tooth : data = danta (Maid, dat 
P., da% Ch.). Tongue : diva = jivhd (Maid, douls 
P , du Ch. ?). An interesting word is ugura for 
throat, which in contrast with the Skr.-Pali gala 
presupposes a form with r: Prakr. *uggura or 
*uggara from ava -f- sjgar (in Maid, karu Ch. the 
old prefix may possibly have fallen off at a later 
period). Arm and hand : ata = hattha (Maid, at 
P., aitila Oh.), Fist : mita = mutthika (cf. supra 
p. 18). Finger : cengilla, older cengili (N. v. 163), 
?= anguli (Maid, inguily P., agili Ch.). Nail: niya 
= nakha, new Sinh. usually niyapotta = Maid. 
niapaty P., niafati Ch. (is the second part of the 
compound potta, husk, scale?). Back: pita— 
pittha. The Elu kanda, shoulder (N. v. 162), = 
khandha, Skr. skandha, receives a welcome con¬ 
firmation in the Maid, condou (P.), kodu (Ch.). 
Foot, leg: paya = pdda, in Elu also contracted 


35 


to pd (N. v. 158) (Maid, pad P., fd, “leg, fiyolu, 
“foot,” Ch.). Knee: dana=jdnu; the Maid, 
uses cacoulou (P.), kaku (Ch.), for this, whilst in 
Sinh. kakula is synonymous with pay a. 

Of parts of the body peculiar to beasts I only 
mention anga, Elu sangu, hangu, = *sahga, Skr, 
iringa (Oh. has for this tung, which maybe derived 
from the well-known adjective tung a, high), and 
naguta, or with true Sinh. hardening nakuta, as one 
of the common words for tail = Pali nanguttha as 
compared with Skr. lahgula. Skin, leather: Kama, 
sama, — camma (Maid, ans P., hang Ch.). Flesh : 
mas = mamsa (Maid, the same Ch.). Bone : cetaya to 
atthi, Skr. asthi; ceta-mola, marrow. Muscle, sinew: 
naharaya to Pali nahdru, Skr. sndyu (Maid, nare 
P., ndru Ch.). Brain : mola, no doubt going back 
to an old *mattha, *masta (cf. supra p. 18). Heart, 
hada to hadaya, Skr. hrd, hrdaya, in Elu also 
hida (N". v. 161) (Maid, il P., King Ch. ?). Blood : 
le = lohita (Maid, lets P., le Ch.). Tears : Jcahdulu 
to \Zkand, Skr. brand in the sense of weep. Milk : 
kiri = khira, Skr. kshira (Maid, kiru Ch.). 

In the two terms gaha, gasa, = gachchha (Maid. 
gats P., gas Ch.), and vcela = vallikd (cf. supra 
p. 19), the whole vegetable kingdom is according 
to L. included. Root: mula = mula (Maid, mou 
P.). Stem : kahda—khandha, Skr. skandha (Maid. 
tandi Ch. P). Atta, branch, with its double t may be 
differentiated from ata, hand. For small twigs ipala 
is int. al. used, which may have been derived 
from uppala- Skr. utpala and then have acquired 
a more general meaning of this word. Leaf: pata 
= patta, Skr. pattra (Maid, fan Ch.); the popular 
use of pan or pam—panna is shown by p ansa la 


36 


or pamsala, leaf hut, ascetic’s abode, and Maid. 
pan (P.). Flower : mala — mdld (Maid, maoe P., 
man Oh.), mada, kernel, inside of a fruit, may be 
derived from majjha (cf. Skr. madhyama for the 
seed capsule of the lotus flower). I shall not at 
present enter further into the names of particular 
plants, though there is here no lack of Aryan 
terms like ^,rice, ■= vihi ; miris, pepper, = marica 
(Maid, mirus Oh.); lunu, onion, garlic, from luhunu 
(cf. Subhdti in Abhidh. v. 595), — lasuna (Maid, 
in lonumedu Ch., garlic). 

World: lova = loka, in Elu often contracted to 
16 (cf. the Index to N. and MR. p. 75). Heaven : 
ahasa = dkdsa. Sun: ira, iru, in Elu also him 
(MR. p. 100), hiri (N. v. 280), — suriya (Maid. 
yrous P., iru Ch.); sunshine avuva = dtapa. Moon : 
hahda, sahda, = canda (Maid, hadu Ch.; as regards 
the phonetic relation cf. Maid, condou, hodu, = 
Sinh. kanda, see supra p. 34). Star: taruva=tdrakd 
(Maid, tary P., tari Ch). Pay : rcesa, generally pi. 
roes, to Skr. rasmi, Pali ramsi, rasmi. JEliya, light, 
brightness, is, according to Childers ( Journ . B. 
A. Soc. N. S. vol. YIII, p. 145), together with 
the tatsama aloka-ya having the same meaning, to 
be connected with Skr.-Pali aloha (Maid, aly, P. 
ali Ch.). Darkness, obscurity: ahdura (Maid, endiry 
P., andiri Ch.) doubtless = andhahdra; cf. also 
Prakr. amdhala, Marathi amdhald, Pischel in 
Hemacandra II, 173, and the Hindi forms andhald, 
andhdrd, &c., in Bate’s Dictionary of the Hindi 
Language, p. 22. 

Rain : vassa, older vcesi (W. v. 34), from vassa, 
Skr. varsha; Maid, vare (P.), ware (Ch.), belong 
probably rather to vdri, water. The old word for 


37 


lightning must be retained in tiie Elu vidu (N. v. 
34), Maid, vidi P. (uridani Oh.). Per tbe only word 
at present in use, as it appears, yiz., viduliya, is 
according to Clougb’s explanation s. v. — Skr. 
widyullatd or more correctly — Pali Qijjnllatd, 
consequently probably a word belonging originally 
to tbe poetic dialect, and wbicb at any rate has 
no closer connection with Prakr. vijjuli and its 
new Indian cognates like bijli, &c. (cf. Pischel in 
Hemacandral, 15, Bate, loc. cit. p. 521). Giguruma, 
also giguru, gigiru, gigiri, thunder (Maid, gougou- 
rou P., guguri Gh.), belongs to the \/ gur, mentioned 
by Pischel in the Beitr. z. Runde d. indo-germ. 
Spr. Ill, p. 237; cf. the Sinh. verb, guguranavd 
and goravanavd, to thunder. Rainbow : dedunna = 
devadhann (but Maid, wareduni in Ch.). 

Fire: ginna, older gini {N. v. 22), — gini; also 
connected gindara, originally perhaps fire-pos¬ 
sessor or the like, so that the second part would 
be derived from \/dhar (cf. also gedara with ge v 
house). 

The current words for water are dig a daka 
for udaka (Maid, diya, “ juice or sap,” Ch.), pceni 
= pdniya (Maid, penne P .,feng Ch.), and vatura , 
whose Aryan origin appears to me by no means 
impossible, in spite of an etymology being still 
wanting. Bubble: bubula — bubbula. Foam: 
pena=phena. Sea: 'Muda, muJmda, for # hamuda 
= samudda (Maid, entirely different candoue P., 
Icadu Ch.). Here the following marine products 
naturally arrange themselves r— hoik, sak, chhank, - 
sankha; mutu, pearl, = inutta; pabalu, pavalv^ 
coral, = Pali pavdla, Skr. prabdla. Lake and pond 
vceva, in inscriptions vaviya = vdpikd (Maid, wen 


38 


Ch.), and pokuna, in inscriptions pukana, to 
pokkharini, Skr. pushkarini (E. Miiller, Report 
on Inscriptions, &c., 1879, pp. 5-6). That gaiiga is 
the common appellation for river is in the highest 
degree characteristic, and Kiepert has rightly 
given prominence to it, loc. cit. supra, 7. For 
smaller livers and streams I find oya, which in 
spite of Elu hoya (MR.), ho (N. v. 88 pond, 90 
river), I would identify with ogha. 

Earth, ground, land: bima = bhumika (Maid. 
bin P., bing Ch., = Elu bim, N. v. 35), and polava 
related to pathavi, pathavi. Island was original' 
ly diva, as the name Maldiva, &e., and Elu divu 
(N. v. 282) show clearly enough; the modem 
language appears to prefer the longer divayina, 
and I find also noted duva, duva. For mountain, 
hill, the authorities give besides kahda more 
especially hela, set, = sela, Skr. Saila; Skr. parvata 
(modern tatsama parvata-ya ) appears (V. v. 107) 
as paruvata (Maid, farubada Ch.), Pali pabbata 
(in the same place) as pavu. Sand: vcela = valukd , 
vdlika (Maid, vely P., weli Ch.). Salt: lunu = 
Iona, Skr. lavana (Maid, lone P., lonu Ch.). For 
gem L. gives mcenika, which is met with in 
this sense as mcenik in inscriptions as early as 
the end of the twelfth century ( Journ. of the 
R. As. Soc. N. S. VII, p. 161, 165) and must be 
looked upon as a remodelling of Skr. mdnikya ; 
the Elu word ruvan, gold, gem (N. v. 219, 221), 
in inscriptions gem, Journ. R. As. Soc., N. S., vol. 
VII, p. 166), = ratana, was however apparently 
at one time not unknown to the popular speech. 
The general name for ore, metal, is 16 = loha : vide 
Clough s. v. and cf. Maid, loe, “ cuivre,” P., ratulo. 


39 


copper, Oh. ( i . e. red ore, ratu = ratta), ramvanloe 
** airain,” P., = rangwanlo, “ brass,” Oh. ( i . e. 
gold-colored ore, van = vanna). Gold was originally 
ran, thus in inscriptions in loc. cit. supra and Elu 
ram, ran, rana (N. v. 219), (Maid, rhan, P. rang 
Oh.), a greatly contracted form of hiranna — 
Skr. hiranya ; at the present time, it seems 
ratran , i. e. red gold, is mostly spoken of. Silver : 
ridi, in Elu also ridiya = rajata (N. v. 219), (Maid. 
rihy, P. rihi Oh.). The Pali words kdlatipu and, 
-sisa are explained by Subhtiti in Abhidh. v. 493 by 
English “ tin and lead” and Sinh. kalutumba; for 
tumba Clough gives the meaning “lead.” Now 
•as tipu is clearly Skr. trapu , 22 and Sinh. kalu like 
Pali kdla means black, it necessarily follows that 
tumba - tipu is the name for lead and tin alike, 
and the kind characterized by the epithet “ black” 
can only be lead. This assumption is entirely 
borne out by the Maid., for according to P. callo- 
thimara is lead, oudutimara tin (Sinh. Kudu, sudu , 
= saddha, white). The resemblance of Umar a to 
tumba is strange. Perhaps a confusion with Skr. 
idmra, Pali and Sinh. tamba, eopper, has taken 
place. Or should the reading trapra in Amarak. 
II. 9, 106, gain credence from this ? The word 
also given for lead, iyam or might very 

plausibly be connected with sisaka, but in that 
case I should at present not know how to explain 
the m. Non-Aryan eertainly is the word for iron 
yakacja = Maid, dagande (P.), dagadu (Oh.). The 
liame for quicksilver is Aryan however: Maid. 


22 Ktilatipu, whieh has been overlooked by Childers, 
also confirms the correctness of the reading, doubted by 
Mm, tipu in Abhidh.y* 1046. 



40 


Taha (P., Ch.) = rasa, Sinli. mostly united w iiih 
diya water : rahadiya y rasadiya . 

Human settlements., &c., village: gam® = gdma y 
town: nuvara — nagara ; both of frequent occur¬ 
rence in names of places. For road, street, we 
have: maga — magga (Maid, magu) and mdvatu 
mahavata, = mahdjpatha (Childers, Journ. H. A . 
Soc. N. S.vol. YII, p. 43). VUiya (also in EM, N. 
v. 106) and vfidiya are only remodelling, of the 
tatsama vithiya* House: ye, gey a, = geha (Maid. 
gue P., ge Ch.), and in the compound already mem 
tioned above gedara. Gate, door: dora=dvdra 
(Maid, dore P., doru Ch.); bolt: agula = aggala , 
Post, pillar: i hanuva = khanuka (Maid, kani Oh..) 
Field : beta — klnetta .. 

Of implements, useful articles, &&., with Aryarn 
appellations I mention only the following:—Ship r 
noma = *ndnsikd for ndvd (Mali, nan Oh.). Haft, 
boat : arwva = Skr. udupa y Pali uhimpa (Maid. 
ody, P. odi Gh.) (Childers, Journ. A. Soc . N. B. 
vol. YII, p. 45). Mast: kumbaya = kumbhaka 
®f. Tmpaka (Maid, kubu Ch.). Net: doda = *jalikm 
for jdla (cf; Maid, dae Ch. p). For the cart and its 
parts riya, eart, = ratha, haJca y saka y wheel, =*= 
cakka; n(Bba,n&ve, = ndbMkdforndbhi; mm, felloe, 
— nemi, are the forms of the respective words which 
conform to phonetic laws; although at present 
I am only able to give them on the authority cf 
the Bln of' the Sinhalese-English volume of 
Clough, and of Subhhti’s notes to Abhid. v. 373 f, 
yet I consider it; in every way probable- that they 
belonged at one time to the popnlar speech* 
Instead of the first two now-a-days, the tatsamas 
unithaya (besides gcela) and chakraya are current* 


41 


Plough; nagula=nahgala, Skr .Icingala. Axe: vceya 
— *vdsika for vast. Hammer: mitiya — *mutthika 
for mutthi (cf. Maid, muri Ch.). as the Elu form CL 
gives also mugura — mug gar a. Bow : dunna, older 
dunu, 2 = dhanu ; with diya, bowstring, = jiya, 
and the compound dunudiya which appears to be no 
longer used in the modem everyday language, cf, 
Maid, dd, “ string” (Ch.). Iya, arrow, I would, in 
spite of the secondary form given by 0. My a, derive 
from *ihiya = *isuka for Skr. ishu, Pali usu. Of 
articles of clothing I may mention only pili, pili, 
= pati (cf. Maid, p&lle, “ de la toile,” P., fell, 
“‘cotton cloth,” ===feli “waist-cloths of native 
manufacture,” Ch.), and kapu, eotton, probably 
for *kapahu = kappas a (cf. Maid, cap a P., leaf a 
Ch.). Boiled rice: bat = bhatta (Maid, bae Ch., 
cf. also perhaps Maid, bate “ meal,” Ch. ?) Flour : 
piti = pittha (cf. Mald/w, “ flour,” Ch. ?). Book : 
pota to potthaka = Skr. pustaka (Maid, fod Ch.). 

Time. The word for year, avurudda , older 
avurudu, Ooldschmidt would derive from Skr. 
samvatsara; if this is correct we must go back to 
an older *havaradu = *sa(rh) v&raehchha for sam- 
vachchhara (cf. the examples - given above, p. 21 
©f d from ch) ; the Maid, aharu (Ch.) is possibly a 
still further contraction. For month the old form 
is maha, masa, •*= mdsa, which is also used in com¬ 
pounds like ilmasa, the cold month {vide supra 
p. 17) (Maid, masse B., hadumas, “ lunar month, 
Ch.); in the modern speech the t&tsama mdsa-ya 
prevails. Day : davaha , davasa, = divasa (Maid, 
duas Ch., ef. in P. eyouduas, “ le temps passe,” 
and paon duas “ le temps auenir”), and derived 
from this davdla, davala, daytime (L,), from 


42 


*davahala ; cf. davahcil (Oh.), Elu daval (N. v. 45), 
and Maid, duale (P.). Night: roe, which mnst be 
derived from a *rdti for Pali ratti, Skr. rdtri 
(Maid, re Ch., regande, “ nuict,” reuegue, “ il est 
nuict” P.). To this I add the adverbs of time: 
day-before-yesterday peridd, from pera, before, 
earlier, which is connected in some way with Skr. 
pruva (cf. Skr. purvedyus) ; iyiyS, iye, yesterday, to 
Tiiyyo Skr. hyas (Maid. y6 P., iyye Ch.); ada, 
to-day, = ajja (Maid, adu P.); heta, seta, to¬ 
morrow, which I would derive from a se answering 
to the Pali sve, sure, the td reminds one of the 
homologous dative ending ; anikdd and assimilated 
aniddd, day-after-tomorrow, from anika, the other, 
an extension of anna, Skr. any a (cf. Skr. anyedyus). 

The foregoing comparison may give a fair idea 
as to how largely diffused is the Aryan element 
among the most essential words of the language. 
In the case of the pronouns, numerals, particles, 
and verbs Childers has pointed out a like pre¬ 
ponderance of this element. 23 In his full treatise 
on this subject the author of this sketch will 
compare the undoubtedly Aryan element of the 

23 In certain particulars Ms first sketches can now be 
considerably amplified and corrected. His derivation 
of the pronoun m&, this, from the stem ima is supported 
by the nom. ima of the inscriptions ( e . g~ E. Muller, Report 
on Inscriptions, & c. 1879, p. 4). Api, we, and topi, you, 
are according' to P. Goldschmidt ( Report , &c. 1876, p. 4) 
and E„ Muller ( Report , &c. 1878, p. 6) to be traced to the 
Prakrit amhe and tumhe . Sitinceva, stand, be, must be 
derived not from Pali santhdna but from the well-known 
Prakrit present chitthati. It may here be incidentally 
mentioned that the root sthti has produced another 
derivative as a verb substantive, namely tibenavd, 
strictly passive of tabanavd, “to put, to place,” which, 
we have above (p. 26) derived from a thapayati = Skr* 
stMpayati . 



43 


entire ancient vocabulary as fully as possible, at the 
same time, however, seeking to approach closer to 
the subject of the non-Aryan remainder. 

Notes by the Translator. 

The above paper was read by Dr. Kuhn at the 
session of the Philos.-Philol. class of Munich on 
5th July 1879. As far as I am aware he has not 
yet read or published the fuller essay to which 
this is only preliminary : the delay is fortunate, as 
Dr. Kuhn will thereby be enabled to make use of 
the valuable paper by Dr. Ed. Muller, entitled 
“ Contributions to Siiiihalese Grammar,” publish¬ 
ed by the Ceylon Government in 1880. 2 * I shall 
proceed to notice a few instances where Dr. Muller’s 
conclusions agree with Prof. Kuhn’s and vice versd. 
With regard to the colonization of Ceylon Dr. 
Muller accepts the Sinhalese traditions respecting 
L a 1 a, “ not,” he says, “ because I am of opinion 
that more faith ought to be placed in the legends of 
the Sinhalese than other Hindus, but because I see 
no reason whatever why they should choose a small 
and insignificant kingdom as the native country 
of their ancestors.” To this he appends the fol¬ 
lowing note :—“ Lassen (Ind. Alterth., vol. II, p. 
105) identifies L a 1 a with L a t a (Greek L a r i k e 
—Gujarat). The whole context of the Mdhdv. 
however shows that this cannot be meant. King 
Nissanka Mall a, a prince of the K a 1 i n g a, 
who has left many inscriptions in different parts of 
Ceylon, was born in a city called Simhapura, which 
he maintains to be the same as Simhapura 
where Wijaya was born. If so L ala was part 

24 And since reprinted, with correction of misprints, 
&e., in the Ind. Ant. July-August 1882.—D. F. 



44 


of the later kingdom K a 1 i n g a, a not unlikely 
place to suppose the Aryan conquerors of Ceylon 
to have started from. This seems also to be the 
opinion of Burnouf (.Recherches sur la Geographie 
Ancienne de Ceylan, p. 61), as he identifies L a 1 a 
with R a d h a—‘ la partie basse du Bengale actuel, 
qui s’etend sur la rive droite de la riviere Hougli, 
et comprend les districts de Tamlouk et de 
Midnapour.’ This country then must have been 
thoroughly Aryan at so remote a time as the 5th 
century B. C. at the latest, for not only is the 
Simhalese language Sanskrit but the vast majo¬ 
rity of the higher castes of the Simhalese have 
unmistakeably the Aryan type of faces, and, as 
for the lower castes, they neither look like Dravi- 
dians, but resemble the Y e d d a s.”* 5 It would seem 
from this last sentence that Dr. Muller does not 
believe the original inhabitants of Ceylon to have 
been Dravidian, though he does not propose any 
other theory of their origin. With regard to the 

Y se d d 6 (not Ysedda, as Prof. Kuhn has it), from 
the scanty materials available it would appear that 
their language is a dialect of Sinhalese: Maha 
Mudaliyar Louis De Zoysahas informed me that the 

Y se d d 6 use words of Sanskrit origin which are 
not to be found in Sinhalese literature for many 
centuries back. It is much to be regretted that 
the ill-health of this able scholar prevents his 
accomplishing the task which he had in view of a 
monograph on the Y se d d 6 and their language. 26 


25 Ind. Ant. vol. XI, p. 198, note a . 

23 Since this was written a paper has been published in 
the Journal of the Ceylon Branch B. A. S., vol. VII, part 
II, by Mr. De Zoysa, “ On the Origin of the Veddas,” 



45 


As to the R o d i y a s, Alwis in the paper referred to 
in note 8 says that from amongst 128 words given 
by Casie Chitty he conld only identify 6 Simhalese 
words, but even of these six more than one of his 
identifications is erroneous. As Casie Chitty’s 
list is not generally available to scholars, I give it 
here, in the hope that Dr. Kuhn and other 
orientalists may succeed in clearing up the 
mystery which enshrouds the origin of some of 
the words. I have in the third column given some 
suggestions as to the derivation of the words: 
these in many instances will no doubt be proved 
to be wrong. The Dravidian and Malayan words 
I owe to my brother, Mr. A. M. Ferguson, Jr. 


which contains interesting specimens of their language. A 
notable feature is the retention of the palatal c which 
the Sinhalese has changed to s or h. The same issue of 
the C. B. B. A. S. Journal contains some valuable notes 
on the Maidive language, by Mr. H. C- P. Bell, whose 
report to the Ceylon Government, now passing through 
the press, will form a welcome addition to the meagre 
information existing concerning the inhabitants of the 
Maldives. Prof. Yirchowhas also recently published a most 
valuable essay on the Yseddo (Berlin, 1881), dealing with 
their origin from an ethnological rather than a philolo* 
gical stand-point, his conclusion being that they are the 
aborigines of Ceylon and of non-Aryan race.—D. F. 




bakuro cf. batdra, used by all the Malayan dialects for “ God,” from 


53 

so 

CS 

5 $ 


bG 

.a 

i 

p 

a 

•A 

M 

£ 

Cu 


c3 

?H 

P 

P 

p 

bG 

c3 

p 

rO 

o 

CO 

u 

c3 

P 

Pm 

Pm 

c3 

e 


o 


£■* 

CD 

SO 


Cl 

> 

co 

§ 

53 

. "cO 

m Ss 
CO 

SO 


o 

so 
t>* CO 


rtf 

CD 


c 3 

c3 


a n 

a g 

p 2 

n3 P 
W P 

53 «4H 

o 

• «-N 

o 

so 

^3 
II 
53 

• r\ • ^ 2 , 

•o so 

^ CO 

m 

bG ^ ^ 


53 

SO 

II 

5 $ 

^ £> 

e ^ 
5 ^ J? 


<M 


P 

rP 

P 

PQ 

«w 

p 

• r\ 

ou 

P 

O 

• rS 

S^> 

P 

.a 

a 

u 

CD 

S-3 

P 

"pH 


£> 

cq 

II 

so 

?> 


p II 

• rH 

r3 §5 

-M-3 *cO 

m 


53 

SO 

e 

?* 

53 

so 


CM 

g> • 

§ a 
• 5 s &s 

& 1 

SO ^ 

• *A 

« ^ _ 
iO 

^ ► 

53 « 


V. 

53 

£ 

53 

I 

•s> 

53 


53 

$s 

53 

£> 

§ 

so 

53 

U2 

II 

CO 

c 3 


?H 

'i - s 

» a J 
e £* 

' <>) _j 

•<>> CD 

^ qp 


■a 

c3 

P 

§ CQ ’"§ 

?5 • P 

^ «h n3 
O m 


c 3 

p 

OQ 

•A 

SO 

S 

53 

so 

03 

13 

« 4 -T 

o 


a 3 


g 

& 

&JD 

HS 2 

C 

11 '1 


so 


m Eh 

qH qn 
P o 


a - 

s ^ 


<o 

bG 

P 




c3 

bG 




/ ^ N 



c3 

t 

H 

P 


c3 


<c3 

r—H 


<0 

P 

P 


l> 


l 

CL. 


bG 

P 

% 

P 

c3 

bG 

r—H 

18 

cl 

p 

-P 

c3 

rH 

c3 

-+3 

-P 

P 

•rj t> 

a 

P 

<c^ 


c3 


c5 

•H P 

p 

s-=> 

TP 

rp 

• rH 

.a 

Pm 
c3 <c^ 

Ph 

<CtS 

bG ri 

• rH Cd 

"p 

?H 

p 

P 

S- 3 

rO 

H fH 

OH rH 

rP 

bG ^ 

<T3 

p 

s-5 


o 

O 


P 

o 

> 

c3 

P 

rP 


rP 

"S 

c3 


P 02 


CO 

c3 

S-3 

CO 




CO 

CO 

p 

p 

3 


bp c3 

nS 


p 

?H 

Cp 


p 


CM 


CO JO CO 


I>* GO G2) O r—H 


( 12 ) river nilatuva v. 10 . 

( 13 ) tank nilatukattmna nilatu, v. 10 ; kattinna, cf. Tamil aneikkattu, dam, anicut. 

( 14 ) mountain teriboraluvange v. 104 , 18 , 2 . 

( 15 ) village durndna 




s£> 

II 

Cs 

•§ 

r—H 
• rH 

a 

d 

Eh 


o 

£ 

d 

o 

• rH 

CO 

• rH 

> 

• rH 

n3 


d nS 


d 


s> 

=* rrJ 

>S o 

53 <£i 

^ d 

cc 


m 

• rH 

£ 

r—H 

<1 

r^ 

nS 

0 

<d 

•rH 

0) 

nS 


CD 

t> 

d 

?H 

b0 

so 

*- 

O 

rO 

m 


w 

•rH 

rO 

n3 

CD 

q=! 

• rH 

+=> 

CD 


•g 

a 

*8 ^ 

^ >a 

•<>> 

• so _• 

m *g 

rO CM 

S-H 

O C/2 


SO 


0 

3 

C+H 

o 

• rH 

d 

rd 

CD 

ci 


CD 

& 

so 

8 

£> 

*■» 

P 

0 

Oi 

0) od 

?H 

o 


C+H 

o 


c$ 

so 

8 

£> 


?H 

• rH 

d 

cd ^ 

«H § 

O 

. T- Qi 

S> 

m 

rH 

&0 

rj 

* m 


8 

£> 


o 

d 

f-H 

r^ 

so 


> m m 


«H 

O 

• »\ 

d 

CD 

rd 


CO 

r, 

CM 


d 

bD 

d 

‘3 

SfH 

O 


so 


l 

d 

»\ 

i^S 

so. 
so, 

a 

•a 

d 

C\ 

Ph 

CD 

bD 

d 

cd 

*N 

*cO 

SO 

$ 


d 


^ I>» rf~) co n i 

CM CM ^ CO Hn 

/ K* «f4 .• «4H 

£> P* O ►> O 


ffi 

?H 

I 

d 

"d 

Ph 

d 

bo 

>d 

d 

PH 


0) 

d 

CO 



<03 ^ #pH # rd 

ns ns +3 93 

id d d d {> 

> S SB SB f3 2 

g g 5S 53 § ^ 

bJD bOr^ d ,4 


'H OQ 

0 


rt 

y | ® r ' 

bo h 3 d 

ri 

2 ^ 

d d g 
d d d 

W 

d 

rj 

S ^ ^ ^ •§ 

•n cc H 

d 

^ ,0 £yo,jD ^ 


^00 05 O H Cl CO ^ 
Ctrl ^ CM CM CM CM (M 


c3 

l>> 


?H 

CD 

rd 


<o 

d 

<o3 


d 

d 

bo 

i 

d <Q c^ 
\> > > 
d d 

^ ^ ^ 
d (d 

Ph Ph 


1 ? s s 

,s s 


r-H • rH • rH • rH 


d 

d 

d 

<D d 

cS §P S 

=1 r§ M 
c5 o3 c3 
6C &0 r d’ 


H-3 

0 d 

M n 
O ° 

d 


0 

§) ^ 
g I 


a ^ ^ 


CO 00 CD o H CM 
Cl CM (M Cl CM CO CO CO 


(33) breast hidulu cf. S. hida, heart. 


m 

>> 

U1 

CD 

31 

pi 

oj 0) 

o 


•P 

* rH 

£ 

o 

c3 

> 


• rH 

t 


£ 

HO 


'C^ 

<D 

Sh 


P 

O 


Pi 

P 

T3 

c3 

CD 

r—I 

o 

xfl 

• rH 

TJ1 

• rH 
r^ 

P 


nd 


•<>> 

^ ^ CD 
^ *rH 

-S £ o 
i^e o 

*<>> o 

0) 05 

.rv qzj • rH 
i-H • rH ^ 

CD ■+= CP 

t> £ 
c6 O 
S ^ 

^ • rH 


O 


o> ~c3 


HO 

•<S> 

O 

r-o 

(1 

•N 

*TJ 

o 

o 

r—l 

r-o 

•A 

o 

rd 

o 

d 


•<^ 

$ 

Or^ 

m 

q4 

o 

•c^ 

$ 

8 

QD 



v* 

oq 

Pi 

co 

Cl 

HO 

HO 

• 

CO 

£> 
<D , 

Oi 

T—1 

*> 

o 

Cl 

• 

P 

Cl 

Cl 

d 

CO 

CM 

d 

<D 

i 

r\ 

CO 

CO 

m 

*% 

o 

CO 

• rs 

o 

PH 

r\ 

CO 

CO 

•\ 

CO 

CO 

rs 

CC) 

CO 

r\ 

Ci 

CO 

> 


> 

P 

O 

> 

> 

t 

> 

> 

> 

> 


1 


CD 

*1$ 

e\ 

°cO 

<£> 

£ 


rg 

P 

o 

3 


rqi 

3 

d 

Eh 

c 4H 

O 


CO 

lO 


d .fl 
P ^ 

§ ■§ 
M g 

S. I 


>> 

!=l 

CD 


m 

CD 

qp 




a £ 

d r d* Hd- 

rM <d <d 
CD bX) OD 




PH >0) 
CO CO 




COI>GOQOH2'22 31^2^^pSxO 

CO CO CO CO -P PH 


£6 

•H3 

£ 

c3 

CO 

rO 


_ yy { 
Tfl 

ch 

a 

o 

rH 

Hn 

^3 

fO 

m 

«H 

o 

fl 

o 

• rH 

-H 

c3 

t> 


Q 


nS 

rH 

Ctf 

N 


0) 

CQ 

o 


c3 


-«s> 

r-o 

r-*o 

cs 

£h 

cc 

hh 

o 

c\ 

T*-0 

r^> 

$ 

• rv 

•<s> 


Cl 

•-N 

GO 


*D 

CO 


<D 

ns 

m 


oi 

CD 



CD 

e 

tH 

CM 

CO 

cc 





D1 

CD 

CD 


a 

CD 

CD 

•\ 

CD 

»\ 

CM 

CN 

CD 

r 

CD 

rH 


iO 

iO 

rH 

CD 

rH 

rH 

• 

t> 

«4H 

o 

• 

t> 

> 

i> 

> 

• 

i> 

• 

t> 


^c<> 

rO 


•<>> 

rO 


<c3 

c2 

&£ 

vP 


<c$ 

^ m3 


fl < B C3 —i 
c3 S 

5pJ g ^ 

^ 2 S 


3 

•rH 

43 

o3 


c3 

<D 


bX3. 

O -H 

rH GQ 

—' o 

s a 

■H o 

£ ns 


2 44 


<d 


2 P cs 
S 3 b qq <gg 

^2 a £ £ 

S£> 

• rH- 

Ph 


a &c ^ 

o> o .p 

nS ns rP 


<3 

rt 

§ 

d 

<3 

r3 

2 


<c3 

Ul 

U1 

0 

rP 

rB 

9 

2 f ^ 
,3? <& 2 

} 5 .-I -4-H 

CS <0 <3 

ft ft £ 


<d 
nd 
<3 p rS 
nS £ 

?H r ~ H 

SB 


<3 

nS 

nS 

2 


<3 

'd ft! 

M ^3. I> 

-+-= O ’2 
o3 £• ft 

O -l-S > fH 


£ 

ft 


<(H 

nS 

nS 


2 


HrH 

nS 


g 2 

N H 

g 2 

_ 6D 50 

nS >fl >fl 
3 3 3 

H ft ft 

O 0 
3 ^ 

^ s§ 

g 3 

rO ,0 


^3 £ 

O 3 g O 
O o o 


(01 CO ^ lO CO N oo o o^h'oi CO ^ lO CO n 


•^> 

r-Hi. 

r^». 

$ 



d 

Eh 


(68) alligator nilatu teriliapaya v. 10, 104, 105. 

(69) tortoise pelava 

(70) lizard aliaru buluva 


( 71 ) snake ilaya cf. Tamil ilu, to drag, 

( 72 ) cock patilaya 


W 

• 4 ^ 


00 

1 ^ 


q-f 

c 

in 

<D 

i 

M 


CM 

r> . 

CO O 

i> rH 

> > 


GO 


•<S> 

■so 

HO . 


H3 
h3 

§ s 

s * 

e S3 

r-o no . 

NO , 

c3 S3 
2 § 
fl ^ 

<D r-H 

-g 

&D fl 

• ^ c^. c 3 

02 ^ H H 


5C 

• rH 

•X 

@ CM 


o 

<d 

rH 

H -3 

c3 

r^e 

§ 


* r—i 

c 3 
1 

Qj r-o 

II 

II x c *5 


<S 


§ " 

s> 

§ 


r-O 


3 S 

P> HO 
§ •rH- 


o 


CH 

o o 


r-«s ~ • r-< 

m 02 Ph 

*3 «h *g 

O o ° 


CO 

GO 


§ 


a- 

HO 

$ 


>> 

s 

cc 

3 

O 

-4-3 

q 3 

<o 

r . 

F““ 

ft 

GO 

CC 

CD 

GO 


Co 

g 

02 

§ 

^<S> 

CO 


CM „ 

ex lO 


t> > 


<c 3 

_3 P 
C3 Q) 
- 4 _o Co 

0> ft 
ft ft 


ft 

f> 


o 3 


<o 

bD 

fl 

c 3 


<c 3 

fl 


<c$ 


<3 

I “ 
KH 

c 3 


c 3 


c3 

rr—I 

C3 

ft 

O 

-4-3 

cn. 


ft 

•rH -rH d 33 <C3 r* . “ 5 ^ 12 fl 

-g -P <J3 § g 3 d3 ^ 2 

S^5?4rgr|^|<»SQ©g3-S 


2 C3 ^ 


g o3 
A A H 


CD 

> 


ft ft -+3 


c3 

H 

P 

0 CD 

ft ft 

Cj S 

<<-H 

ri 


§ a 


c 

<D 

ft 

a 2 

CD ft 

ft "o 



- 43 ) 

fl 

• rH 





A 


rH 

fl 


rr* 


fish 

tree 

flowe 

fruit 

c 3 

O 

o 

o 

o 

H 3 

r^ S 

C \r 

ft 

<D 

?H 

betel 


o 

§ ►> 
<3 ft 
ft ft 
o c3 


<D 

O 


£ 

c3 

ft 


CjT CO Cp)' 5^ O CM CO ^ ft ft N 

K i >. I>- J>- i>* !>• J>- 00 GO GO GO 00 GO 00 GO 


( 88 ) straw pangaran 

( 89 ) temple bakuruange 

( 90 ) house dumuna 


(§1) ddci 4 JiiatillEti 

(92) cloth potiya cf. Tdniil poitis 

(93) mat pitav&nna 


:c« 

Eh 


*8 ^ 


o 


O 

H 

bo 

•N 

e 

1 >s> 


CM 


OS 

c* „ 

•s 00 

O' rH 


>» k 


CO 

"«N 

Ol 

o 

rH 

rH 

> 


-H 

0) 

CD 

£ 

CO 


■ <>> 
rO 

fc <S> 

rC» 


*«0 


- '&D 

bo 

c3 

• r-a 
*> 

$ 

• r—i 

S5 S, 

g 02 

> o 


> H 


-H> 

C3 

CD 



bo 



N# 

-H> 


>• 

O 


£ 

<d 

r-H 


p 

CD 


CD 

3Q 


a 

O 

H3 


o 

m 



"p 

SO 

d 



!>• 

£0 



^4—I 

o 

*N 

£ 
SO . 

3 


a 


ifi 

• rH 
rP 

EH 


•<>> 


•«s> 

so 


^ S 

Ph 02 
*5 *8 


<o <( & 

'3 i 

*<c3 < c3 
> > 

J ^ :?p 

<X <Jr-H ^ 

f> a p 


c3 

> 

c3 

bO 

P 

eg 

c5 

P 

cS 

P4 , 

rP 


P 

-H 

o3 

r—H 

£ eS 

■r§ SB 


05 

P 

c3 


-P 

a- - 

o H 

a, c3 
CD ^ H 5 

-+& ~P 


P 

"p 


rO 

P 


3 

rO 

P 


3 -2 


c3 H 


<CS rP P r-H rH Q 

fl ^ tlDrd ^ S H 


h mh )3 ® 0 p *" v 

CD H rH ^ 5f). 

o 11 § 11 § 

pH ^ rH P H *n M 


>* 8 


a) 

a 


■T3 

- O 

O S) 


>**43 

Cti & 

ft l> 
<P d 
rP P 


Co O 

p p 


h ^ co in 
O 0> Ot) (O 


00 Oi O H (M CO H 

o> o> o o o o o 


kO CO 

o o 


(107) to go, walk dissenava 

(108) to come ievinava cf. Kian Dayak Uvahi 


<r e\ 


*4 

o 
ft 
m 

O 
P 

*N 

VS 

*<S> 
C) 1 —^ 

^ 0 h5e 

- _id 
cS 


Sh 

0 

ft 

£ 

ft 


o 

p 

o 

p 

0 

0Q 

cQ 

0 

O 

o 

p 


— p 

a 

l—O 

It 

•e=> 
£ 
S 
1—0 

e 


o 

p 

ft 

S2- 
<— », 


r> 

0 


QJ P 

§m 

Co 

ft 


VS 
£> 

s ^ 

5S o 
p 

■HO „ 

3 $ 
g vs- 
a hs 

£ :g 

» V— 1 

m ^ 

«H ^ 

O g 

c3 

co £H 


OQ 

TJ1 

0 

4 

cS 


C3* 


m 

. ft 

M ‘5 


3 

r—o 

e 


be 

d 

o 

GQ 


c$ 

0 

ft; 

g* 

O 

P 


VS 

£> 

e 

g 

QD 

g 

ft 

m 

*& 


m 

0 

ft 

• r—i 

P 

rf 

0 

ft 


. $S •• 

W « O 




P P 

0 O 



a© 

«» rH 

rr 


<1 

g: 


v —^ 

e 



^e 

VS 


°'<S> 

HO 





tP 


cS 

p 

r^e 

<S> 


• #N 

J>- 

ftl 

• rH 


d 


ft 

> 

P-r. 

0. 


<*3 

{> 

c3 

d 

. 0 
«c3 > 

> P 
cs <o3 

d d 
d d 
ft p* 
ft d 
8 £ 
>> ^ 


<3 f 

5 d 

H 0 

CS r—j 
§•:§> 

1 ' a 
c3 cS 

£ ft 
d' ®‘ 
ft ft 


<c^ 

i> 

<c$ 'd 


- S' 

cS d 


t> 

w , c3 
d ft d 
H ft, «3 a 


ft 


. <c3 
«c3 ;> 


cS 
d <cs 


5> H ed pj 


^ s p c 

cS w-. ft d 

r-1 d ft ft S 

rj ^ g S, 

3 £ m & % .£P 

cS: £ 0 ft d r-j 

bC.. r-t- ft-*rd d Pi 


<cS 

£ 

1 

ri4 

Pi' 


<c§ 

Iff 

I a § 

ft 0 

P ft 

® 3 ® S^. 


<c£ 

cS- 

a 


c3 9* 
ft 


0 

ft o g n 
0 d 2r 
o © S S 

ffi P Cfi 

O O O O 
p HJ P- 


W O Tp W 
O P P P 


ft 

be 

d 

cS 


ft 

0 

0 

£ 


0 

0 

m 


a o o 
p^ p p 


d ft 
0 o 
ft O 
o 0 

O o 

p p 


"d 

0 


p 

c3 P 
0 ft 
ft ft 


a o o 

p p p 


0 

°-r-i 

ft 

o 

p 


0) 

'■ >- 


d 

ft 

o 

p 


be 

o- 

p- 


CH p' S' !>• 00 OS- O P C<1 CO- 
i—I p P p P‘ P t—I Ol CM CM Of 


53 


In a letter to the Indian Antiquary (vol, I, p. 
258), Dr. Hyde Clarke states that the Rodiya 
“ belongs to the same general fa mil y as the 
Kajunah.” He further says:—“ There is little 
direct resemblance between the Kajunah and the 
Abkkass, or between the Kajunah and the 
Rodiya, but the relationship of each is rather 
with the Abyssinian class.” This Abyssinian 
class, he says, comprises the languages of the 
Agaws, Waags, Falashas (Black Jews), Fertits, 
Dizzelas and Shankalis; and with these he 
connects, besides the Rodiya, the Abkhass of 
Caucasia, and the Galela of the Eastern Archi¬ 
pelago, a Siberian class and two American classes 
being also related. Dr. Clarke concludes his 
letter by saying :—“ The group which I hare nam¬ 
ed at present—the Siberio-Nubian—must have 
had possession of the whole of India before the 
Dravidians.” Unfortunately, Dr. Hyde Clarke 
gives no proofs for his statements, and, as I have 
no vocabularies of the languages mentioned, I am 
unable to compare them with the Rodiya. The 
Treasury of Languages (1873) pronounces Rodiya 
to be allied to Hindi, but this book, though 
it has the authority of some eminent names, 
is not altogether reliable, e. g. its statement 
that “ Elu or high Sinhalese is Dravidian and 
closely resembles Tamil.” With reference to note 9 
I may mention that Dr. Muller ( loc . cit .) gives 
a number of comparisons of Sinhalese words 
with the corresponding forms in the Asoka, 
Dramatic and Jaina Magadhi, the resemblances 
being sometimes very close. The word ha.muda 
should have no asterisk : it is found in several 


54 


inscriptions. With regard to the Sinhalese 
phonetic system. Dr. Mailer states that the 1 
original Sinhalese alphabet had only the three 
short vowels, a, i, u, besides e and o, the original 
quantity of which is still uncertain. The oldest 
Sinhalese also possessed the consonant c, of 
which Dr. Muller says :—“ c I have met with, 
in inscriptions till the fourth century, afterwards 
it immigrated into s, and in the ninth century 
has quite disappeared.” On the other hand, the. 
original alphabet lacked the cerebral f and 
anusvara. With reference to the latter Dr. Muller- 
says :—“ Although the anusvara does not appear ih 
Sinhalese words up to the fourth century A. D.* 
it is doubtful whether it was not pronounced; 
for we later find many words written with anus¬ 
vara or a nasal before a consonant which had the 
same in Skt. but not in ancient Sinhalese,, 
while it would be difficult to consider them all as 
tatsamas; for instance Skt. chandira _ A. S. chadci * 
modern Sinhalese Itianda, Maldivian hadu ( hadu , 
is a mistake), besides Skt. anga mod. Sin. anga y 
Skt. mandala, M. S. manclul, £ etc.” He says, 
further:—“ It is true the Sinhalese in ancient; 
times wrote the anusvara and nasal, before strong- 
consonants in Pali words, and besides without, 
assuming the questionable words to be tatsamas' 
they might have been altered by the influence of' 
the priesthood, the powerful instructors of the- 
people. And on the ether hand there are in¬ 
stances where the nasal has been lost for ever. I 
therefore consider it best to assume that the 
Sinhalese had lost anusvara and the nasal before 
other consonants.” According to Dr. Muller* 


55 


rowel lengthening is due to (1) contraction and 
(2) accent. As instances of the latter he men¬ 
tions boho{ma ) = bahu, asuvti 80, anuva 90, and 
verbal forms like gcelima (from gala-navd, \/gal) 
&c., as against older senim, sitim. (10th oentury),. 
and still older pollsatarikama for pratisaviishdrita- 
harma. Childers’ theory to account for the 
terminal a of animate nouns is shown by Dr. 
Muller to be incorrect. He says:—“ The lengthen¬ 
ing of the final vowel in animates as d in 
minisd, I believe is due to a former termination 
in ah, affix ha, now used to indicate indefinition in 
inanimates. In modern Indian vernaculars, too, 
we find a as a masculine termination, comp- 
Beames vol. II, p. 160.” He also says —-“ Originally 
every Sinhalese word terminated in a vowel: 
between the 7th and 9th century the tendency of 
the language was so much changed that most 
nouns came to terminate in a consonant; later, a 
short a was appended to inanimates, animate 
males partly contracted the syll. ah to d (so at 
least I comprehend this process at present), and if 
they ended in u or i, this had been changed into 
wah and yah. W and y assimilated with the 
preceding consonants, and we thus find double 
consonants with d in the nominative singular (for 
instance hurula, hurulwak, hurulld ).” On the 
subject of the vowel sound ce (long de) Dr. Muller 
says:—“ A further important addition to the 
vowel system was made by the two characters 
peculiar to Sinhalese m and its lengthening cm 
They are not found yet in the 4th century but are 
firmly established in the 9th (about the interval 
I am unable to judge) yet, though not written they 


L.ofC. 


56 


may have been pronounced long ago.” He then ♦ 
quotes from Beames’ Comp. Gram. vol. I, p. 141 if, 
the following (as he justly terms it) “ interesting 
note”:—“ The Bengali language, as actually spoken 
by all classes, from the highest to the lowest, 
differs in many respects from the language as 
written in books. Especially is this noticeable in 
the treatment of the vowel a, which in colloquial 
usage is frequently, in fact almost universally, 
corrupted into e.” But, curiously enough, the 
latter part of Mr. Beames’ note, which is the most 
interesting with reference to the point under 
discussion, Dr. Muller omits, but, as his remarks 
refer to this very part, I think the omission must 
be due to the printer. Mr. Beames says :—“ This 
Bengali e is pronounced more like the English a 
in mat, rat, etc., than like the full Italian e in 
veno, avete, etc., and seems to be a lineal 
descendant of the short e of Prakrit.” “Now,” 
Dr. Miiller says, “ this is exactly the sound of the 
Sinhalese ce, and as the Sinhalese probably came 
from a part of Bengal, they might have brought 
this sound with them. There is another reason to 
suppose that these sounds are older than the 
invention of characters proper to them. The 
Sinhalese vaddranavd is a corrupted tats, from 
Pali avadhdreti; the verbal noun at present is 
vcedderuma, older vcejoeruma. Now, in an inscrip¬ 
tion of the second or third century A. D. at 
Badagiriya we find vajeriyi ‘ he declares,’ i.e., e 
used to express the sound ce which is a modifica¬ 
tion of a.” I may just remark in passing that 
the representation of this sound by the Roman 
diphthong ce may be considered very fairly satis- 


57 


factory, the ce having the same sound in Anglo- 
Saxon, and the Sinhalese character itself being a 
modification of the symbol for a. Prof. Kuhn’s re¬ 
marks on the palatals need some modification, owing 
to the^ fact which I have already mentioned of c 
beingfound in the oldest Sinhalese. With reference 
to the weak nasal sounds before the explosives 
g, d, d, and b, it is certainly curious that writers 
on the Sinhalese language have said so little on 
the subject. Even Childers has not, so far as 
I am aware, described the exact pronunciation of 
these sounds. In fact, Alwis, in the places 
referred to by Dr. Kuhn (SB. p.lxi, and Descript. 
Cat. p. 236), is the only one who gives any sort of 
explanation of these nasals. He says they are 
“very soft,” “very faint,” and, “metrically, one 
syllabic instant.” Hut, according to him, this 
weak nasal is also found before j in Sinhalese. 
This I very much doubt: I believe the n has its 
full sound before j in Sinhalese as in Sanskrit or 
Pali. Childers’ representation of this weak nasal 
sound by, u before g, d, d, and by m before b is 
very satisfactory. In Alwis’ Descrijot. Cat. the 
combined nasal and explosives are represented by 
(n)g, ( ri)j , (n)d, (n)d, (m)b —a very awkward method 
certainly; and in the Pev. C. Alwis’ Sinhalese 
Handbook they are printed n-g, n-d, n-d, m-b. In 
a review of this latter book in the Ceylon Observer 
of 14th July 1880 Dr. Miiller made some 
remarks on the representation of these combi¬ 
nations which led me to think that he had 
failed to notice this peculiarity of the Sinhalese 
language, but from a passage in his Contributions 
to Sinhalese Grammar I find I did him injustice. 


58 


He tliere says :—“ At present there is a difference 
in pronunciation between the real bindu and those 
weak nasals before other consonants. I doubt 
whether any two kinds of nasals existed in the 
twelfth century, for we find the bindu used with 
It and ligatures with all the other nasalized conso¬ 
nants.” The real sound of such words as anga , 
handa, haiida, amba, may be learnt by pronouncing 
them as aga, hada, hada, aba, but in each case inter¬ 
jecting a slight nasal before the explosive. I may 
mention that though in Ceylon manuscripts the 
compound characters which in the Sinhalese 
alphabet are used to represent the above sounds 
are made to represent the Pali ng, nd, and mb 
(nd is never so used), the best native scholars at 
present earefully distinguish them in writing, 
the letters being joined in Pali words but never 
combined. The anusvara in the north Indian 
dialects is spoken with a strong nasal, whereas 
in Sinhalese it is very slightly nasal. When final 
or preceding a sibilant, the m, as Childers has 
remarked, is pronounced like ng in German gang . 
(I would in passing raise a protest against the 
introduction by Rhys Davids in his translation 
of the Jdtaka of the unsightly symbol invented 
by Pitman for the ng sound. The m or m has 
now obtained a recognised standing as the Roman 
equivalent of the anusvara?) Prof. Kuhn does not 
speak of the pronunciation given to jn in modem 
Sinhalese, but Dr. Muller says :—“ The oldest 
form of this combination is ny in savanyutopete 

* I am glad to learn from Prof. Fausboll that he and 
Dr. Trenckner at least, intend to adhere to the signs n 
and m.—JD. F. 



59 


(inscription at Kirinde) where the y is marked by 
a separate sign below the line. The group is 
still pronounced though not written in this way 
in Ceylon.” Now this is certainly wrong: jn 
is always pronounced by the Sinhalese as gn, 
just as it is pronounced gy in Hindi, &c. The 
asterisk before kurulu should be omitted, the 
word being genuine. According to Muller yahala 
= sahdya. The reason why val = vana was prefix- 
e&to asa=achchha was, as Goldschmidt has pointed 
out, to distinguish it from as = assa. The origin 
of rilavd is certainly obscure. Can it be a con¬ 
traction from rceli-muva, wrinkled-face ? Cf. 
voeli-mukha with the same meaning as a name 
for the white-faced monkey (Clough). Muller 
explains monard as being for morana, Le., mora+ 
na, and this na he believes to be due (as well as 
the nd in ukuna = ukd and in gdnd = go ) to a 
feminine in n% : the nimeri of the Maidive he 
thinks confirms this. Muller’s derivation of oya 
from Skr. srotas, Pali sotto, is I think the right 
one, and not ogha. The word for hill is kanda, 
not kanda , and is, as Muller shows, from Skr. 
skhanna : the older form is kana. Sand is vazli, 
not vcela. The word for iron, yakada, which Prof. 
Kuhn says is certainly non-Aryan, is as Aryan as 
it can be: it is a compound, {a)ya~kada = ayo~ 
kandam ; cf. in Clough yakula, yagula, yadanda 
yaddma, yapata, yapaluva, yabora, yavula, 
yahanduva> yahada, yahala, all compounds from 
ya = ay a. Muller says that it is doubtful if oruva 
is derived from udapa or direct from the Tamil. 
He derives iya, older My a, from git a, and 
explains the i by the following transitions: sit a, 



LIBRARY 


OF CONGRESS 


60 


q 039 308 268 9 


Jiiya, M, My a. The origin of oluva is certainly 
puzzling: cf. Javanese ulu with the synonymous 
mastiha. Can it he that oluva = matthaka with 
loss of initial? Perhaps the Maidive bolle, bo, 
supports this. With the word for leg, hakula, cf. 
Malay kaM and Tamil Ml. 

Colombo, Ceylon. 


\ 








